From jppm-skills
Estimates and stress-tests treatment effects for JPP&M manuscripts: DiD, RDD, synthetic control, experiments. Expresses magnitudes in policy-relevant units with uncertainty.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jppm-skills:jppm-data-analysisThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- A DiD around a policy rollout needs modern estimators and a pre-trend defense
At JPP&M the estimate feeds a policy judgment, so the analysis has two jobs the sibling journals weigh less: (1) make the causal claim survive an econometrics-literate reviewer, and (2) express magnitudes in decision units — percentage points of prevalence, dollars per household, calories per purchase, share of consumers misled — with uncertainty attached. A p-value cannot tell an agency whether a warning is worth mandating; an effect of "−2.1 percentage points in purchase incidence, 95% CI [−3.4, −0.8], concentrated among households below median income" can. Every headline estimate should be convertible into the language of a regulatory impact analysis.
| Design | Core estimate | The checks reviewers expect |
|---|---|---|
| DiD (staggered adoption) | group-time ATTs (Callaway–Sant'Anna, Sun–Abraham) | event-study plot; Goodman-Bacon decomposition; honest-DiD sensitivity to pre-trend violations |
| Canonical 2×2 DiD | TWFE with clustered SEs | pre-trend test; placebo outcomes; composition stability |
| RDD | local polynomial at the cutoff (rdrobust) | McCrary density test; bandwidth sensitivity; covariate smoothness; donut variants |
| Synthetic control | treated-vs-synthetic gap | pre-period fit; in-space and in-time placebos; leave-one-out donors |
| Experiment | ANOVA/OLS on manipulated conditions | randomization/balance check; effect sizes with CIs; multiple-outcome corrections |
Inference discipline: cluster at the policy-assignment level (state, market), and when treated clusters are few, use wild-cluster bootstrap or randomization inference rather than pretending N is large.
Subgroup effects are not garnish here — they are often the finding. Pre-specify the policy-relevant splits (income, literacy/numeracy, age, race/ethnicity where the policy debate concerns targeting, prior usage of the harmful product), report them all rather than the flattering subset, and correct for the family of tests. An intervention with a null average effect that protects the most-exposed decile is a policy success; a positive average driven entirely by the already-safe is a policy failure. Interactions need probing (simple effects at policy-meaningful levels), and null subgroup effects deserve equivalence-style interpretation, not silence.
Run the battery, don't just enumerate it. Full map:
execution-with-mcp. JPP&M lives on policy evaluation and policy-realistic experiments; the counterfactual checks and welfare-relevant subgroup corrections are where reviewers concentrate fire.
detect_design → recommend → fit with as_handle=true → audit_result to
enumerate what the design still owes.callaway_santanna / sun_abraham, then
bacon_decomposition and honest_did_from_result for the pre-trend sensitivity a
policy audience needs.rdrobust + mccrary_test (firms sort around
thresholds — test it, don't assert it).romano_wolf /
benjamini_hochberg across the vulnerable-population splits.wild_cluster_bootstrap; spatial policy
spillovers → conley.etable / did_summary_to_latex and
plot_from_result, so table numbers never drift from the fitted model.Keep the decisive counterfactual evidence in the body and the exhaustive battery in the web appendix; a worked end-to-end run lives in the JF execution walkthrough.
【Design & estimator】DiD (CS/SA) / RDD / synthetic control / experiment (+ inference choice)
【Headline estimate】effect in decision units + CI
【Counterfactual checks】pre-trends/sensitivity, density/placebos — status of each
【Heterogeneity】pre-specified subgroups, corrected; who is protected vs. missed
【Policy translation】market-level magnitude + benchmark vs. alternative instruments
【Unintended effects】substitution/boomerang estimates or bounds
【Next skill】jppm-contribution-framing
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jppm-skillsGuides selection of research methods for JPP&M manuscripts: experiments with policy-realistic stimuli, quasi-experimental policy evaluation (DiD, RDD, synthetic control), surveys, field data, or meta-analysis.
Guides estimation, cost-benefit, and distributional analysis for JPAM manuscripts. Reports effects in policy-relevant units with robustness and honest uncertainty.
Stress-tests quasi-experimental policy-evaluation designs (DID/event study, IV, RDD/bunching, RCT) for AEJ: Economic Policy manuscripts.