Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ecopol-theory-model
ecopol-theory-model
GitHub用于构建或优化经济政策论文的理论与定量模型。确保模型简洁透明，通过机制解释、福利计算或反事实模拟，将实证结果转化为政策建议，并通过透明度与必要性测试以符合政策受众需求。
Trigger Scenarios
需要模型将估计值映射为福利或政策成本声明时
定量模型的机制对非专业人士不透明时
模型过于复杂超出政策问题所需时
决策者无法识别驱动核心结论的关键假设时
审稿人要求提供福利解释而非仅简化形式效应时
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ecopol-theory-model -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ecopol-theory-model",
"description": "Use when building or tightening the conceptual frame or quantitative model that disciplines an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's policy logic. Keeps the model minimal-but-honest and legible to a policy audience; it does not invent evidence or citations."
}
Theory and Model Craft (ecopol-theory-model)
When to trigger
- The empirical results need a model to map estimates into a welfare or policy-cost statement
- A quantitative/structural model runs the counterfactual policy but its mechanism is opaque to a non-specialist
- The model is more elaborate than the policy question requires (a discussant will ask "why all this machinery?")
- The counterfactual policy scenario is computed but the policymaker cannot see which assumption drives the headline number
- Reviewers/discussants want the welfare interpretation, not just reduced-form effects
EP's model standard: minimal, transparent, policy-bearing
EP is not a theory journal. A model earns its place only if it does policy work: it converts estimates into welfare, fiscal cost, or distributional statements; it disciplines a counterfactual policy; or it clarifies a mechanism that the reduced form cannot. The house style is accessible, so the model in the main text should be the smallest model that carries the policy conclusion, with derivations and extensions in the technical appendix. Two tests every EP model must pass:
- The transparency test. Can a policymaker see which assumption produces the headline number, and how the number moves if that assumption changes? If the model is a black box, the policy discussant will not trust the recommendation.
- The necessity test. Remove the model — does the policy claim survive? If yes, the model is decoration; cut it to the appendix. If no, the model is the contribution and must be defended.
Decision table: how much model does this paper need?
| The paper's job | Model role | Where it lives |
|---|---|---|
| Estimate a causal policy effect, no welfare claim | none / a one-equation framing | main text, a paragraph |
| Turn effects into welfare or fiscal cost | a small sufficient-statistic / accounting model | main text, few equations; derivation in appendix |
| Simulate a not-yet-enacted reform | a calibrated/estimated structural model | mechanism in main text, full model in appendix |
| Explain a surprising mechanism | a stylized model isolating the channel | main text, deliberately minimal |
Craft moves
- Lead with the mechanism in words, then formalize. The policy reader should grasp the channel before seeing a single equation.
- Expose the key elasticity / sufficient statistic. EP readers want to know "the answer depends mostly on parameter θ, which we estimate / take from the literature as X." Make θ visible and its source explicit.
- Show the counterfactual's sensitivity to the one or two assumptions that matter, in the main text — this is what a policymaker actually needs.
- Calibration discipline: every calibrated parameter gets a source and a sensitivity range; "standard values" without citation invites a discussant takedown.
- Welfare framing: state whose welfare, under what social objective, and what is omitted (distributional incidence, GE feedback, political constraints).
Checklist
- The model passes the necessity test — without it the policy claim would not hold
- The mechanism is stated in plain words before formalization
- The key elasticity / sufficient statistic is named, sourced, and its value justified
- Counterfactual policy sensitivity to the one or two driving assumptions is shown in the main text
- Every calibrated parameter has a source and a sensitivity range
- Welfare/cost claims state whose welfare, the objective, and what is omitted
- Heavy derivations are in the technical appendix, not crowding the main text
Anti-patterns
- A general-equilibrium apparatus where a one-line sufficient-statistic argument would do — over-modeling for a policy audience
- A black-box structural model whose headline number the reader cannot trace to an assumption
- "Standard calibration" with no citations and no sensitivity range
- A welfare statement that hides the distributional incidence a policymaker most cares about
- Model derivations dominating the main text and burying the policy message
Output format
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-theory-model
【Model role】framing / welfare-accounting / structural-counterfactual / mechanism
【Necessity test】does the policy claim need the model? Y/N
【Key parameter】θ = <value> (source) ; headline sensitivity to θ
【Welfare framing】whose welfare / objective / what is omitted
【Main-text vs appendix】what stays / what moves to appendix
【Next skill】ecopol-robustness
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:53
