From jet-skills
Hardens assumptions, results, and proof architecture for a JET theory paper. Makes every assumption load-bearing, structures proofs for expert referee verification, and defends the generality/tractability trade-off.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jet-skills:jet-identification-strategyThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You have a candidate theorem and need to make its assumptions and proof referee-proof
JET is theory-first: there is no data design to identify. The credibility of a JET paper rests on assumptions that are explicit and minimal, results stated precisely, and proofs an expert can check — refereed single-blind by at least two reviewers who will verify each step.
thm-restate to restate); body keeps the ideaJET papers separate three tiers of premises; label them so referees see which is which:
Referee heuristic: the first thing checked is whether the theorem statement quantifies over exactly the numbered assumptions — nothing more, nothing less. A theorem invoking "the assumptions of Section 2" without numbers invites a hostile read.
Theorem 1 (statement quantified over A1–A3 only)
├─ Lemma 1: existence of the auxiliary object [uses A1, A3 (compactness)]
├─ Lemma 2: monotonicity / single-crossing step [uses A2]
│ └─ Claim 2.1: boundary case [where A2 binds → necessity candidate]
├─ Main argument: fixed point / duality / induction (named in one body sentence)
└─ Appendix B: full proofs of Lemmas 1–2; the body keeps the roadmap paragraph + key step
Example 1 (tightness): drop A2, hold everything else fixed → conclusion fails; cite it
right after Theorem 1, not in a footnote.
A representation theorem for ambiguity-averse preferences: A1 (weak order, continuity) is regularity; A2 (certainty independence) is the economic axiom. The proof's separation argument fails exactly when A2 is weakened to independence on constants only; Example 1 exhibits a maxmin preference violating the conclusion under the weakening. One page settles A2's tier, load-bearing step, and necessity — the page both referees read first.
【Theorem】<precise statement>
【Assumptions】[A1 used at step __ | A2 used at __ | necessity of Ak: counterexample/general]
【Proof spine】lemmas in order → key argument named → appendix offload
【Generality call】special-case-clean | general-but-checkable | (reject) general-unverifiable
【Next】jet-contribution-framing / jet-tables-figures (schematic) / jet-rebuttal
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jet-skillsStress-tests the analytical core of a GEB manuscript: maps assumptions, states results precisely, and checks proof correctness, tightness, and generality for theory or behavioral papers.
Helps state and prove the central theorem of an Econometrica manuscript with complete, correct proofs. Covers definitions, assumptions, theorem statement, and proof strategy within the 45-page body + supplemental material limit.
Builds, sharpens, and stress-tests theoretical models for REStud manuscripts. Organizes proofs for the online appendix and ensures economic payoff visibility.