Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jet-identification-strategy
jet-identification-strategy
GitHub针对JET论文的理论假设、结果与证明架构优化。明确并最小化假设，确保其关键性；分离一般性与技术性陈述；构建清晰、可验证的证明结构（含引理与路线图）；区分模型结构、经济与技术假设，以应对双盲审稿人的严格审查。
Trigger Scenarios
需要使候选定理的假设和证明经得起审稿人检验
面临在简洁特例与一般但晦涩陈述之间的选择
审稿人质疑假设必要性或普遍适用性
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jet-identification-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jet-identification-strategy",
"description": "Use when hardening the assumptions, results, and proof architecture of a Journal of Economic Theory (JET) paper — the theory analogue of an identification strategy. Make every assumption explicit and load-bearing, architect the proof so two expert referees can verify it, and defend the generality\/tractability trade-off; for JET, \"identification\" means assumption sets and proof exposition, not a causal design."
}
Assumptions, Results & Proof Architecture (jet-identification-strategy)
When to trigger
- You have a candidate theorem and need to make its assumptions and proof referee-proof
- A referee may ask "is assumption X necessary?" or "does this hold in the general case?"
- You are choosing between a clean special case and a more general but opaque statement
Why this replaces a causal "identification strategy"
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.
The theory checklist
Assumptions
- Every assumption is stated formally (domain, regularity: continuity, convexity, single-crossing, finiteness) before it is used
- Each assumption is load-bearing — for each one, you can name the step that fails without it
- No silent assumption smuggled into a proof (a common referee catch)
- Necessity is addressed: a counterexample shows what breaks if a key assumption is dropped
Results
- The main result is a clean theorem/proposition/characterization, numbered and self-contained
- Genericity, existence, uniqueness, and comparative statics are separated into distinct statements
- The statement says exactly what is proved — no informal "essentially" claims beyond the proof
Proof exposition
- Proof architecture is visible: lemmas in dependency order, a one-paragraph roadmap for long proofs
- Key step (fixed point, duality, induction, envelope/revelation argument) is named and motivated
- Long/technical proofs moved to an appendix (
thm-restateto restate); body keeps the idea - Notation is consistent end-to-end (referees abandon proofs they cannot parse)
Generality vs. tractability
- The chosen level of generality is defended: a transparent special case can beat an unverifiable general one; a general result is worth it only if the proof remains checkable
- Any restriction (finite types, two players) is flagged as a scope limit, not hidden
Assumption-set architecture (three tiers)
JET papers separate three tiers of premises; label them so referees see which is which:
- Maintained structure — the model itself (agents, type spaces, action sets, timing). Lives in the model section as prose and definitions, not as numbered assumptions.
- Economic assumptions — single-crossing, private values, independence, ambiguity attitudes, substitutability. Numbered A1, A2, …; each carries economic content and each earns a necessity discussion.
- Technical regularity — compactness, continuity, measurability. Numbered last; defensible as standard, but still say which proof step uses each one.
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.
Proof-spine scaffold
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.
Writing the tightness discussion JET-style
- Place the counterexample immediately after the theorem as a numbered Example, with one sentence saying which assumption it targets.
- Make it minimal: change exactly one assumption and keep the rest of the environment fixed, so the referee attributes the failure to the right premise.
- If no counterexample is available, state openly that necessity is an open question — JET referees respect a flagged open problem more than silence.
Micro-vignette (decision theory)
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.
Anti-patterns
- A "general" theorem whose proof silently needs finiteness or continuity
- Assumptions introduced inside a proof rather than stated up front
- A monolithic 6-page proof with no roadmap or lemma decomposition
- Claiming necessity of an assumption without a counterexample
Output format
【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
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:35
