Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ecopol-literature-positioning
ecopol-literature-positioning
GitHub用于将经济政策论文置于学术前沿与实时政策辩论的双重语境中，明确对两者的贡献。不生成新证据，旨在厘清政策新颖性，回应“为何重要”的质疑，强化对决策者及学术圈的双重定位。
触发场景
政策新颖性模糊，易被指缺乏新意
仅引用学术文献而忽略智库、央行等政策辩论前沿
无法用一句话概括对政策对话的改变
框架局限于单一国家，缺乏欧洲或全球相关性
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ecopol-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ecopol-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when staking an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's contribution against the live policy debate and the adjacent academic literature. Sharpens the policy-and-academic positioning; it does not invent evidence or citations."
}
Literature Positioning (ecopol-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The contribution is clear to specialists but the policy novelty is fuzzy
- A reviewer/discussant could say "we already knew this" or "this is just AEJ:EP / J.Pub.E. material"
- The draft cites the academic frontier but ignores the policy-debate frontier (think tanks, central banks, the Commission)
- You cannot say in one sentence what the paper changes for the policy conversation
- The framing leans on one country/episode and a discussant will ask "why does Europe/the world care?"
EP positions on two frontiers at once
Most economics journals ask you to position against one literature — the academic frontier. EP asks for two simultaneous positions, because the paper is published with two discussants (one academic, one policy) and read by both audiences:
- The academic frontier — the peer-reviewed work on the mechanism/method. Standard, but keep it lean: EP prose is accessible, so the lit review is a paragraph that names the gap, not a survey.
- The policy-debate frontier — what policymakers, central banks, the European Commission, the IMF, the OECD, CEPR/CESifo policy outlets currently believe and argue. EP rewards a paper that moves this conversation. Cite the live debate (a Commission proposal, an ECB position, a current reform) so the policy discussant sees you in their world.
The contribution sentence must land both: "The academic literature establishes A; the policy debate currently assumes B; this paper shows C, which implies the policy stance should shift from B."
Positioning moves by situation
| Situation | Positioning move |
|---|---|
| Result confirms what economists suspected | Lead with the policy-debate novelty — quantifying or settling a contested policy claim is itself the contribution |
| Result is academically novel but niche | Lead with the policy stakes — show why the niche mechanism drives a first-order policy magnitude |
| Crowded empirical area | Position on the policy lever you can move, not on a marginally better estimate |
| Cross-country / EU paper | Position against the comparative/institutional literature; show the European/global generality |
Sibling boundaries (write these into the intro)
- AEJ: Economic Policy — AEA, anonymous refereeing, more technical; rewards identification rigor for a broad economics audience. EP wants the same rigor but in an appendix, with the policy decision foregrounded for a policy reader.
- Brookings Papers on Economic Activity — the closest cousin: also panel-presented with discussants, but US-centric and macro-leaning. EP is the European/global, CEPR-CESifo-Sciences Po analogue.
- Journal of Public Economics — field journal, standard refereeing, no panel; theory/empirics of public finance. EP differs by timeliness, policy audience, and the panel/discussant lifecycle.
- IMF Economic Review / World Bank Economic Review — institution-anchored, development/IMF-program focus. EP is independent, non-partisan, European-led.
Checklist
- One contribution sentence that moves both the academic and the policy-debate frontier
- The live policy debate is cited (Commission/ECB/IMF/OECD/CEPR-CESifo), not just journals
- Academic lit review is lean and accessible — a gap statement, not a survey
- At least one explicit sibling boundary (vs AEJ:EP, Brookings, or J.Pub.E.) is in the intro
- Cross-country/EU framing earns its "European/global" claim
- Every cited source is real and verified — no invented references
Anti-patterns
- A lit review that satisfies the academic discussant but leaves the policy discussant unsure why it matters now
- Positioning only against journal articles when the relevant debate is in policy reports
- A bloated survey-style review — incompatible with EP's accessible house style
- "First paper to…" claims that a discussant can puncture with one citation
- Letting the paper read as an AEJ:EP submission with a policy abstract pasted on top
Output format
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-literature-positioning
【Contribution sentence】academic frontier A + policy-debate frontier B → C
【Policy debate cited】Commission/ECB/IMF/OECD/CEPR/CESifo source
【Academic gap】one-paragraph gap statement
【Sibling boundary】why EP not AEJ:EP / Brookings / J.Pub.E.
【Verdict】positioned / sharpen / reroute
【Source status】verified / 待核实
【Next skill】ecopol-identification
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:53
