Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ecopol-referee-strategy
ecopol-referee-strategy
GitHub针对经济政策会议非匿名评审机制，模拟学术与政策两位讨论者视角进行压力测试。预判质疑、准备现场回应及政策底线，区分会前修改与口头辩护策略，替代传统盲审准备方式。
Trigger Scenarios
论文受邀参加经济政策双年会议
需预判讨论者观点并准备现场辩论
混淆了匿名审稿与面板讨论的准备工作
政策角度未经过严格压力测试
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ecopol-referee-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ecopol-referee-strategy",
"description": "Use when preparing an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript for its panel review — the two named discussants and the conference debate that replace standard anonymous refereeing. War-games the discussants; it does not invent evidence or citations."
}
Panel & Discussant Strategy (ecopol-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- A paper has been (or is likely to be) invited to present at an EP biannual conference
- You need to anticipate the two discussants and the live panel debate before standing up
- A coauthor assumes EP runs anonymous refereeing and is preparing the wrong way
- The paper is strong academically but you have not stress-tested the policy angle a policy discussant will press
- You must decide what to fix before the conference vs. what to commit to revising after
EP review is a panel, not a referee pool — plan for it
This is the most EP-specific skill in the pack, because EP does not run standard double-blind refereeing. Papers are selected by the Managing Editor / Panel, presented at a biannual conference (summer and winter), where two invited discussants — chosen to bring an academic and a policy perspective — act as the referees, debate the paper live in front of the panel and audience, and whose written comments are published alongside the final paper (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). This changes the strategy in three ways:
- Reviewers are named and public. You can (and should) anticipate the specific people and institutions likely to discuss your paper. Their comments will appear in print next to yours — they have an incentive to be sharp.
- The debate is live and oral. Unlike a referee letter you answer in writing, you respond in real time. You cannot run a new regression mid-session. Pre-empt, don't defer.
- Two perspectives, two failure modes. The academic discussant attacks rigor; the policy discussant attacks relevance, magnitude, and legibility. A paper can pass one and fail the other.
War-game the two discussants
| Discussant persona | What they will press | Pre-empt by |
|---|---|---|
| Academic (subfield expert) | identification, estimator choice, robustness, "have you tried…" | ecopol-identification + ecopol-robustness done thoroughly; top 3 objections answered in text |
| Policy (ministry/central bank/Commission) | magnitude, welfare/cost framing, external validity, "what do I do with this?" | ecopol-tables-figures units + a crisp policy bottom line; legible main text |
Concretely: name two plausible real discussants for your paper (by subfield and by institution, not necessarily by individual), then read your draft as each of them. Where each would object, decide: fix now, or prepare a one-paragraph live answer.
Pre-conference moves
- Build an objection ledger: every anticipated point, its source persona, and your response (fix vs. defend).
- Prepare the live answers to the top objections you choose not to pre-fix — a sentence and, ideally, a backup slide/appendix exhibit.
- Make the policy bottom line unmissable so the policy discussant cannot say "I don't know what to do with this."
- Tighten the central magnitude's robustness — the most common live takedown is "your number isn't stable."
- Have the replication package ready (
ecopol-replication-package) so a provenance challenge is answerable on the spot.
Checklist
- Two plausible discussant personas named (academic subfield + policy institution)
- Draft read as each persona; objections logged with fix-vs-defend decisions
- Top academic objections (identification/robustness) pre-empted in the main text
- Policy bottom line is crisp and unmissable for the policy discussant
- Central magnitude's robustness tightened against the "your number moves" attack
- Live answers prepared for objections you chose not to pre-fix
- Replication package ready for a provenance challenge at the conference
- You are not preparing as if for anonymous written refereeing
Anti-patterns
- Treating EP review as anonymous refereeing and writing a defensive response letter instead of pre-empting live
- Preparing only for the academic discussant and getting blindsided by the policy discussant (or vice versa)
- Deferring a known weakness to "we'll address it in revision" when it will be debated live and published
- No crisp policy takeaway, so the policy discussant fills the vacuum with skepticism
- Ignoring that the discussants' published comments become a permanent part of the record
Output format
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-referee-strategy
【Review model】panel + two named discussants (NOT anonymous refereeing)
【Academic discussant】subfield → top objections → fix/defend
【Policy discussant】institution → top objections → fix/defend
【Objection ledger】top 3 with responses
【Live-answer prep】backup exhibits ready? Y/N
【Next skill】ecopol-submission
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:53
