arecon-evidence-standards
Use when appraising the credibility of the primary studies an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review synthesizes, and when calibrating comprehensiveness, balance, and fair treatment of competing views. Weighs evidence and audits even-handedness; it does not design the spine (arecon-organizing-framework) or run your own identification.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arecon-evidence-standards --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# Evidence Appraisal & Balance (arecon-evidence-standards) ## When to trigger - The framework is set and you are filling cells with conflicting empirical results - You must decide whether "the literature finds X" is actually supported, or only loosely - The field has rival schools, a live controversy, or estimates that disagree - You are a contributor to this literature and worry the review tilts toward your own work ## Appraising evidence you did not produce An ARE review **runs no identification of its own** — there is no design to defend, no replication package of your data. Instead you act as the field's **referee-of-record for adjacent readers**: you judge how much weight each primary study can bear so the review weighs the evidence correctly. Make the appraisal explicit, not implicit: - **DID / event study:** does the cited paper use TWFE on staggered timing without addressing heterogeneity bias? A study that predates Callaway–Sant'Anna / Sun–Abraham corrections may not support the magnitude you attribute to it — flag it. - **IV:** is the first stage strong and the exclusion restriction defended, or is it a convenience instrument? Weak-IV results carry less weight in your syn
- When to trigger
- Appraising evidence you did not produce
- Execution bridge — when rating is not enough
- Weighing, not vote-counting
- Comprehensiveness vs. selectivity: the ARE contract
- Fairness and the self-citation trap
- Checklist
- Anti-patterns
- Output format
What does the arecon-evidence-standards skill do?
Use when appraising the credibility of the primary studies an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review synthesizes, and when calibrating comprehensiveness, balance, and fair treatment of competing views. Weighs evidence and audits even-handedness; it does not design the spine (arecon-organizing-framework) or run your own identification.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arecon-evidence-standards --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.