Stats
Actions
Tags
From wber-skills
Routes manuscript work for The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) submissions, directing to the appropriate wber-* sub-skill based on current stage or bottleneck.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/wber-skills:wber-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 wber-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at *The World Bank Economic Review* (WBER) — the **rigorous empirical development-economics** journal published by **Oxford University Press for the World Bank** (founded 1986, quarterly). WBER prizes two things at once: **credible identification** AND **clear development-policy relevance**...
This is the router. It tells you which wber- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) — the rigorous empirical development-economics journal published by Oxford University Press for the World Bank (founded 1986, quarterly). WBER prizes two things at once: credible identification AND clear development-policy relevance for a World Bank / policymaker audience. A paper that nails one and ignores the other is the classic WBER misfire.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as WBER. Operational tells that you are at WBER and not a sibling: the journal requires public release of all data and code as a condition of publication (it is, by repute, the only development field journal that does this routinely); review is single-anonymized (referees blind, author names on the title page); there is a 40-page total cap including everything; and WBER welcomes short-format policy-relevant papers alongside full articles. Editors as of 2026: Eric Edmonds and Nina Pavcnik (Dartmouth) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the OUP WBER pages.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Question is interesting but not clearly development + policy-relevant | wber-topic-selection |
| Contribution vs. JDE / World Development / the Research Observer is fuzzy | wber-literature-positioning |
| Causal design (RCT/DiD/RD/IV) credibility is the bottleneck | wber-identification |
| A development model is needed to interpret or to run a counterfactual | wber-theory-model |
| Results may be specification-, sample-, or inference-sensitive | wber-robustness |
| Exhibits are dense; significance asterisks still present | wber-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the policy "so what"; intro/abstract do not land | wber-writing-style |
| Data + code deposit, README, DOI link, restricted-data path | wber-replication-package |
| Want to anticipate referee objections before submitting | wber-referee-strategy |
| Ready to submit via ScholarOne; need a preflight | wber-submission |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | wber-rebuttal |
wber-topic-selection — lock a development question with policy stakeswber-literature-positioning — stake the contribution; rule out sibling venueswber-identification — make the causal design crediblewber-theory-model — only if interpretation or counterfactual needs a modelwber-robustness — threat-by-threat, not an appendix dumpwber-tables-figures — exhibits a policymaker can read; no asteriskswber-writing-style — make the policy contribution land (abstract + intro last)wber-replication-package — assemble the data + code deposit with a DOIwber-referee-strategy — pre-empt the predictable objectionswber-submission — ScholarOne preflight (40-page cap, single-anon title page)wber-rebuttal — after the R&R
wber-writing-styleis a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before identification and the policy frame settle.wber-theory-modelis conditional — a clean reduced-form evaluation often needs no formal model.
WBER spans several development archetypes, and the binding constraint differs. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| program/impact evaluation (RCT or quasi-experiment) | estimand + external validity / scaling | wber-identification |
| policy-reform DiD / RD around a developing-country reform | staggered-DiD bias or RD manipulation | wber-identification |
| measurement / poverty / inequality using LSMS/DHS/admin data | data construction transparency + reproducibility | wber-replication-package → wber-robustness |
| development model + structural counterfactual | what identifies parameters; policy-invariance | wber-theory-model → wber-identification |
| short-format policy note | sharp single result + tight framing | wber-topic-selection → wber-writing-style |
A user says: "My RCT of a school-grants program in three districts estimates a clean ITT, but a referee says it reads like a project report and isn't general enough for WBER." That is two distinct WBER pushbacks — policy/general-interest framing (owned by wber-topic-selection + wber-literature-positioning) and external validity / scaling (owned by wber-identification). Route to positioning first to reframe the evaluation as evidence on a mechanism of interest to development policy, then to wber-identification to argue what the three-district LATE implies for scale-up (general-equilibrium, fiscal cost). Only once the framing and external-validity story hold do you return to exhibits and the rebuttal.
if decision_letter_arrived: -> wber-rebuttal
elif ready_to_submit: -> wber-submission
elif anticipating_referees: -> wber-referee-strategy
elif data_code_deposit: -> wber-replication-package
elif exhibits_or_significance: -> wber-tables-figures
elif results_fragile: -> wber-robustness
elif need_model_for_counterfactual: -> wber-theory-model
elif identification_shaky: -> wber-identification
elif contribution_or_fit_fuzzy: -> wber-literature-positioning / wber-topic-selection
else: -> wber-topic-selection
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin wber-skillsEvaluates whether a development-economics question fits The World Bank Economic Review and helps frame it for both credible empirics and policy relevance.
Evaluates manuscript fit for the World Bank Economic Review, covering scope, method bar, house style, and desk-reject risks for development economics papers.
Routes manuscript work for World Development submissions by selecting the appropriate sub-skill based on current stage (scope, identification, writing, etc.).