From jep-skills
Audits economic writing for balance, objectivity, and honest uncertainty. Ensures competing views are presented fairly and advocacy is avoided. Useful for JEP-style synthesis articles.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jep-skills:jep-balance-and-objectivityThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The draft argues for one side of a live debate and slights the other
JEP is rigorous synthesis by economists for economists, not advocacy. A JEP article must give a fair account of competing views, weigh the evidence rather than the author's preferences, and be honest about what is uncertain or unknown. The reader should trust that they are getting the state of the debate, not a brief for one position. This is the line that separates JEP from a well-written op-ed.
jep-evidence-without-equations), and say plainly where the evidence is mixed.| Red flag | Fix |
|---|---|
| Only one side's evidence appears | Add the strongest opposing studies and weigh them |
| Policy recommendation stated as if it followed mechanically from facts | Separate the positive finding from the normative call; show trade-offs |
| Dissent dismissed in a clause | Give the dissent a fair hearing and say why it does/doesn't move the verdict |
| Confident verdict on a genuinely open question | Report the disagreement and what would resolve it |
| Author's own result framed as the settled answer | Disclose the stake; present competing estimates neutrally |
An author who has spent a career arguing that a policy works writes the JEP synthesis of that policy. The balanced version opens by disclosing the stake, presents the strongest evidence on both sides (including the studies that find null or negative effects), and concludes: "On balance the evidence leans positive for short-run outcomes, but the long-run and general-equilibrium effects remain genuinely contested." That last sentence — refusing to round a live debate up to consensus — is what makes an editor trust the piece as synthesis rather than as the author's brief.
【Debate】[the contested question]
【Competing views (steelmanned)】side A: … side B: …
【Verdict basis】weight/consistency of evidence: [...]
【Positive vs. normative】separated? policy labeled as judgment? [Y/N]
【Author stake】disclosed if relevant? [Y/N]
【Uncertainty stated】open questions flagged? [Y/N]
【Advocacy check】reads as synthesis, not op-ed? [Y/N]
【Next step】jep-editor-strategy
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jep-skillsAudits a JEL survey for completeness vs. selectivity and fairness across schools, authors, and controversies, including guarding against over-citation of the author's own work.
Positions an Economic Policy manuscript against the academic frontier and the live policy debate. Sharpens contribution statements for dual academic/policy audiences.
Structures a JEP article as a narrative arc with hook, tension, synthesis, and takeaways for a general economist audience.