| name | academic-deai |
| description | Detect AI-like phrasing and evaluate journal quality in English economics manuscripts against top-5 journal standards (AER, QJE, Econometrica, JPE, REStud). Use when user says 'deai', 'AI traces', 'remove AI tone', 'style scrub', 'economics writing check', or 'check AI-like phrasing'. |
Academic De-AI for Economics Writing
Core mission: produce journal-quality economics prose free of AI traces.
When the user provides a file path, read the file first. This skill uses two reference files in the same directory:
ai-detection.md — lexical markers, template sentences, syntax rules, density thresholdsjournal-quality.md — top-5 journal conventions, section structure, prose standards, positive/negative markers
Read both reference files before evaluating any text.
1. Primary Objective
The goal is not merely to remove AI-like phrasing. The goal is to produce prose that reads like a published article in a top-5 economics journal.
Every sentence is evaluated on two axes:
- AI contamination — does it contain templated, inflated, or mechanically balanced phrasing?
- Journal quality — does it meet the prose, structure, and formatting standards of AER/QJE/Econometrica/JPE/REStud?
A sentence fails if it scores high on either axis. Low AI markers do not excuse flat, note-like, or unacademic writing. Clean prose that sounds like a memo, referee report, or slide deck still needs revision.
2. Distinguish Three Cases
When reviewing a sentence, always classify it as one of:
Case 1: AI-like phrasing (flag and revise)
Templated, over-smoothed, over-complete, rhetorically inflated, or mechanically balanced writing. Uses high-risk verbs, adjectives, or sentence structures listed in ai-detection.md.
Case 2: Acceptable journal prose (preserve)
Standard top-5 journal prose that uses moderate abstraction, careful interpretation, or contribution framing tied to a concrete object. See the standard phrases whitelist in journal-quality.md.
Case 3: Over-corrected flat prose (bad revision — avoid)
Writing that removes AI markers by stripping away legitimate academic texture, leaving the sentence sounding like a memo, internal note, or slide bullet. This is a revision failure.
3. Preserve These Academic Features
Do not automatically remove the following if they are concrete and disciplined:
- moderate abstraction tied to a specific variable, institution, or model object
- mechanism language tied to variables, coefficients, policies, or sectors
- restrained interpretation (one sentence of interpretation after a result is standard)
- contribution framing that is enumerated and anchored to specific prior papers
- passive constructions in methods: "Standard errors are clustered at the state level."
- first-person plural "we" as default voice (standard in all top-5 journals)
Examples of acceptable academic prose (do NOT flag):
- "We find that..." / "Our results suggest that..."
- "The estimates are consistent with..." / "This pattern is consistent with..."
- "A likely mechanism is..." / "One possible mechanism is..."
- "This paper studies..." / "This paper makes three contributions."
- "Several limitations should be acknowledged."
- "Column (1) reports results from..."
See the full whitelist of standard phrases in journal-quality.md.
4. "This paper" Rule
Do not ban "This paper" outright. It is standard in all top-5 journals.
Acceptable:
- one or two information-rich uses in the introduction
- contribution framing: "This paper makes three contributions."
- reference to the paper's specific contribution in discussion
Flag only when:
- repeated frequently (>2 per 1,000 words)
- used at the start of many consecutive paragraphs
- followed by generic contribution language without specifics
- used instead of stating a concrete result or mechanism
5. Passive Voice Rule
Do not flag passive voice mechanically. Passive is standard in top-5 methods sections.
Acceptable:
- "Standard errors are clustered at the state level."
- "The estimates are reported in Table 2."
- "The sample is restricted to..."
- "The results should be interpreted with caution because..."
Flag only when passive creates:
- empty meta-writing: "It is worth noting that..."
- unnecessary distance: "It should be emphasized that..."
- ceremonial phrasing: "It can be seen that..."
6. Rewriting Standard
Prefer the smallest revision that removes AI phrasing while preserving journal-quality prose.
Priority order:
- Remove inflated or templated wording
- Remove empty emphasis or empty transitions
- Keep the mechanism and channel
- Keep the comparison baseline
- Keep specific numbers, table references, and coefficient interpretations
- Keep the sentence suitable for a top-5 journal article
Do not:
- turn a discussion sentence into a note-style sentence
- remove all abstraction or interpretation
- replace journal prose with plain factual fragments
- strip table/column references or coefficient magnitudes
7. Avoid Memo-Style Downgrades
Flag a proposed rewrite if it:
- removes the mechanism entirely
- removes the comparison baseline
- replaces academic prose with short blunt statements
- converts a discussion sentence into a results bullet
- sounds like a policy memo, referee note, or slide narration
- strips analytical content in the name of simplicity
- loses specific numbers or table references
Bad revision pattern:
- shorter but flatter
- cleaner but less scholarly
- less AI-like but also less publishable
8. Before / After Examples
Example 1
AI-like (score: AI 3, JQ 1):
"Moreover, our findings underscore that trade shocks play a pivotal role in exacerbating food insecurity -- not only through direct price transmission channels but also by undermining the resilience of vulnerable households. These results have important implications for policy design."
Over-corrected flat (score: AI 0, JQ 3):
"Trade shocks worsened food insecurity. Vulnerable households were most affected."
Journal-quality (score: AI 0, JQ 0):
"Trade shocks worsened food insecurity through direct price transmission and by placing greater pressure on households with limited capacity to absorb higher food costs."
Why: removes Moreover, underscore, pivotal role, the dash template, not-only/but-also, and the empty implication sentence; preserves the two mechanisms; remains journal-level.
Example 2
AI-like (score: AI 3, JQ 2):
"This paper contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how climate variability shapes agricultural outcomes."
Over-corrected flat (score: AI 0, JQ 3):
"Climate variability affected agricultural outcomes."
Journal-quality (score: AI 0, JQ 0):
"The results show that climate variability affects agricultural outcomes unevenly across settings and sectors."
Why: removes contribution cliche and "nuanced understanding"; keeps analytical content with scope condition.
Example 3
AI-like (score: AI 3, JQ 1):
"Interestingly, the coefficient on tariff reduction is positive and significant, lending support to the hypothesis that trade liberalization fosters dietary diversity through enhanced market access."
Over-corrected flat (score: AI 0, JQ 3):
"Tariff reductions increased dietary diversity."
Journal-quality (score: AI 0, JQ 0):
"Tariff reductions are associated with higher dietary diversity, consistent with improved access to imported foods."
Why: removes Interestingly and lending support; keeps mechanism; uses calibrated "associated with" and "consistent with."
9. Sentence-Level Scoring (Dual Axis)
AI score:
| Score | Meaning | Action |
|---|
| 0 | natural | no change |
| 1 | mildly templated | optional cleanup |
| 2 | suspicious | revise |
| 3 | strongly AI-like | revise immediately |
Journal-quality score:
| Score | Meaning | Action |
|---|
| 0 | journal-ready | no change |
| 1 | slightly below journal level | optional polish |
| 2 | reads like memo, note, or slide | revise |
| 3 | unacademic or analytically empty | revise immediately |
A sentence needs revision if either score >= 2. Prioritize by combined score.
10. Output Format
For each flagged sentence, provide:
- Which rules triggered (cite specific section from ai-detection.md or journal-quality.md)
- What should be removed or softened
- A journal-quality revision preserving mechanism and analytical content
- Dual score: (AI: X, JQ: X)
Overall structure:
## Overall diagnosis
- Document type:
- Most common AI pattern:
- Most common journal-quality issue:
- Flagged sentences: [count]
## High-risk AI markers (AI score >= 2)
> "quoted sentence"
- Rule: [specific rule from ai-detection.md]
- Problem: [why it sounds templated]
- Revision: [journal-quality rewrite]
- Score: (AI: X, JQ: X)
## Journal-quality issues (JQ score >= 2)
> "quoted sentence"
- Issue: [too flat / mechanism lost / over-compressed / memo tone / missing table reference / etc.]
- What is missing: [mechanism / baseline / interpretation / specifics]
- Revision: [journal-quality rewrite]
- Score: (AI: X, JQ: X)
## Medium-risk style issues (either score = 1)
> "quoted sentence"
- Rule: [which rule]
- Revision: [suggested improvement]
- Score: (AI: X, JQ: X)
## Economics-specific issues
- Causal overreach:
- Missing comparison baseline:
- Mechanism not tied to variables:
- Significance without magnitude:
- Contribution language without specifics:
## Structure-level issues
- Section structure problems:
- Paragraph rhythm issues:
- Results reporting issues:
## Density summary
- Em dashes:
- High-risk transitions:
- Abstract-noun stacking:
- Weak-hedge density:
- Uniform sentence/paragraph length:
11. Forbidden Output
Never:
- rewrite into a different kind of AI prose
- give generic praise ("overall well-written")
- say only "make it more natural"
- replace one inflated AI phrase with another
- fabricate numbers, coefficients, or data not in the original text
- over-correct into memo prose, bullet-point style, or flat summaries
- strip table/column references or coefficient interpretations from revisions
Always:
- quote the original sentence
- identify the specific rule (with reference to ai-detection.md or journal-quality.md)
- explain why it fails on AI axis, JQ axis, or both
- provide a revision that would pass both axes
- check your own revision against the memo-style downgrade rules in section 7
