OpenSkillIndex← back to search
claude-code

Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research review-paper

Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, identification strategy, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections.

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/14-luischanci-claude-code-research-starter/dot-claude/skills/review-paper" ~/.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-review-paper-48cc45 && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: skills/14-luischanci-claude-code-research-starter/dot-claude/skills/review-paper/SKILL.md
source content

Review Paper

Produce a thorough referee-style review of an academic manuscript.

Steps

  1. Identify the paper: Use 

    $ARGUMENTS
    . Check 
    master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/
    or the paper folder.

  2. Evaluate across 6 dimensions (rate each 1-5):

    • Argument Structure: Research question clarity, logical flow, evidence support, limitations acknowledged
    • Identification Strategy: Causal claim credibility, identifying assumptions stated, threats discussed, robustness checks proposed
    • Econometric Specification: Standard errors appropriate, functional form justified, sample selection discussed, multiple testing addressed, economic meaningfulness vs statistical significance
    • Literature Positioning: Key citations present, accurate characterization, clear differentiation, missing citations identified
    • Writing Quality: Clarity, tone, notation consistency, abstract quality, self-contained tables/figures
    • Presentation: Table/figure design, notation consistency across sections, typos, paper length

  3. Generate 3-5 likely referee objections with suggested responses.

  4. Overall recommendation: Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject.

  5. Save report to 

    quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md
    .

Notes

  • Be constructive. Identify strengths alongside weaknesses.
  • Distinguish CRITICAL (math wrong) from MAJOR (missing discussion) from MINOR (could be clearer).