From experimental-economics-skills
Routes manuscript workflow from design through rebuttal for Experimental Economics submissions. Invoke when sequencing next steps or deciding which expecon-* skill to use.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/experimental-economics-skills:expecon-workflowThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
This is the router. It tells you **which expecon-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at *Experimental Economics* — the **official journal of the Economic Science Association (ESA)** and the field's flagship for **experimental METHODS in economics**: lab experiments, lab-in-the-field, field experiments, market and game experiments, methodology of experimentation, and repl...
This is the router. It tells you which expecon- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Experimental Economics — the official journal of the Economic Science Association (ESA) and the field's flagship for experimental METHODS in economics: lab experiments, lab-in-the-field, field experiments, market and game experiments, methodology of experimentation, and replications. The journal is defined by method, not topic. A clean public-goods design and a clean matching-market design compete in the same queue; what they share is craft.
Operational tells that you are at Experimental Economics and not a sibling: the journal moved from Springer to Cambridge University Press in January 2025 (Vol. 28), fully open access (CC BY) on behalf of the ESA (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); submission runs through Editorial Manager (editorialmanager.com/eec) under anonymous (double-blind) refereeing, with two editors approving each accepted paper; participant instructions must be supplied at submission; and two hard gates dominate everything else — real salient incentives and the ESA NO-DECEPTION norm. A study that deceives participants is effectively a desk reject. Default assumption unless the user says otherwise: treat the target as Experimental Economics.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the question is a method-defined fit, or it reads as topic-first | expecon-topic-selection |
| Contribution vs. the experimental literature is fuzzy or oversold | expecon-literature-positioning |
| The behavioral/game-theoretic hypotheses being tested are loose | expecon-theory-model |
| Incentive compatibility, randomization, control, or the no-deception gate is shaky | expecon-identification |
| Power/MHT/comprehension/order effects/inference are the worry | expecon-robustness |
| Treatment-effect plots or tables are dense or mis-scaled | expecon-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the design; intro/abstract do not land | expecon-writing-style |
| z-Tree/oTree code, instructions, data deposit, or ESA repro prep | expecon-replication-package |
| Want to anticipate referee objections before submitting | expecon-referee-strategy |
| Ready to submit via Editorial Manager; need a preflight | expecon-submission |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | expecon-rebuttal |
expecon-topic-selection — confirm the method-defined fit and the cleanest treatment contrastexpecon-literature-positioning — stake the contribution vs. prior experimentsexpecon-theory-model — pin the testable behavioral/game-theoretic hypotheses and predictionsexpecon-identification — incentives, randomization, control, comprehension, no-deceptionexpecon-robustness — power/sample-size justification, MHT, order/learning, pooled-vs-session inferenceexpecon-tables-figures — treatment-comparison exhibits that carry the designexpecon-writing-style — make the design land (abstract + intro last)expecon-replication-package — instructions + z-Tree/oTree code + data, ESA-compliantexpecon-referee-strategy — anticipate the experimentalist refereeexpecon-submission — Editorial Manager preflightexpecon-rebuttal — after the R&R
expecon-writing-styleis late polish; do not rewrite the intro before design and analysis settle. Pre-registration (and any Registered Report intention) is decided atexpecon-topic-selection/expecon-identification, never retrofitted.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| Lab market / game experiment | clean treatment contrast + incentive-compatible payoffs | expecon-identification |
| Field / lab-in-the-field experiment | randomization integrity + attrition + ecological validity | expecon-identification → expecon-robustness |
| Methodology-of-experimentation paper | what existing designs get wrong + a demonstration | expecon-topic-selection → expecon-theory-model |
| Replication / Registered Report | fidelity to original protocol + pre-specified analysis + power | expecon-topic-selection → expecon-robustness |
A user says: "My ultimatum-game variant works, but a referee says the stranger-matching feedback might have misled subjects and the treatment effect could be a power artifact." Two distinct ExpEcon pushbacks — a possible deception concern (false feedback about other players) owned by expecon-identification, and underpowering owned by expecon-robustness. Resolve the deception gate first (it is binary and can sink the paper), then justify the sample (e.g., the design has 80% power to detect a 1.5-token gap at the session-clustered level, illustrative), then return to exhibits and the letter.
Most stages can be revisited out of sequence, but two checks dominate every route and should be confirmed before deep work on any skill:
expecon-identification first; if it cannot be removed, the design must change.A third, softer gate — pre-registration / Registered Report intent — is cheap before data collection and impossible to retrofit after. Decide it at expecon-topic-selection. When in doubt about where to enter, check these gates first; they reorder everything else.
【Target】Experimental Economics (ESA flagship; method-defined)
【Current bottleneck】fit / contribution / hypotheses / design / robustness / exhibits / style / package / submission / revision
【Next skill】<one expecon-* skill>
【Reason】why this is the binding constraint
【Gate check】incentives salient? no deception? instructions ready?
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 检索于 2026-06;以官网为准 / 待核实
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin experimental-economics-skillsFrames whether a research question is a method-defined fit for Experimental Economics manuscripts and selects the minimal treatment contrast for the design.
Guides authors targeting Experimental Economics journal: assesses fit, frames experimental design, applies method/evidence bar, house style, and desk-reject heuristics.
Routes JEBO manuscript work by paper archetype (experiment, empirics, theory, simulation) and diagnoses bottlenecks to select the next jebo-* sub-skill.