Draft economics papers with proper structure and academic style
npx skills add https://github.com/hchulkim/claude-code-config --skill academic-paper-writer复制此命令并粘贴到 Claude Code 中以安装该技能
Initialize new economics research projects with standardized structure. Use when starting a new research project to create folder structure, configuration files, and boilerplate code. Sets up git, rix environment, Makefile, and connects to Dropbox/Overleaf.
Write and typeset economic models in LaTeX with proper notation
Build and solve Walrasian general equilibrium models with theory derivations and Julia computation
Search, summarize, and synthesize economics literature
Generate research questions from economic phenomena
Fetch economic data from FRED, World Bank, and other APIs
| name | academic-paper-writer |
| description | Draft economics papers with proper structure and academic style |
| workflow_stage | writing |
| compatibility | ["claude-code","cursor","codex","gemini-cli"] |
| author | Awesome Econ AI Community |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| tags | ["LaTeX","academic-writing","papers","economics"] |
This skill helps economists draft, structure, and polish academic papers with proper conventions for economics journals. It provides templates for different paper types and guidance on academic writing style.
Ask the user:
For empirical papers, use:
\section{Introduction}
% Hook - Why does this matter?
[TOPIC] is a fundamental question in economics, with implications for
[POLICY AREA] and [BROADER RELEVANCE]. Despite extensive research,
we still lack clear evidence on [SPECIFIC GAP].
% Research question
This paper asks: [RESEARCH QUESTION IN PLAIN LANGUAGE]?
Specifically, we examine whether [PRECISE FORMULATION OF THE QUESTION].
% Preview of answer
We find that [MAIN RESULT IN ONE SENTENCE]. This effect is
[economically significant / modest / heterogeneous], with
[QUANTITATIVE SUMMARY: e.g., "a one standard deviation increase
in X associated with a Y percent increase in Z"].
% Methodology (brief)
To identify this effect, we exploit [IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY:
natural experiment / RCT / instrumental variable / RDD].
Our data come from [DATA SOURCE], covering [TIME PERIOD]
and [SAMPLE SIZE] observations.
% Contribution / Related literature
Our paper contributes to several strands of literature.
First, we extend the work of \citet{Author2020} by [EXTENSION].
Second, we provide new evidence on [MECHANISM/CHANNEL] that
complements \citet{OtherAuthor2019}. Finally, our findings
have implications for [POLICY/FUTURE RESEARCH].
% Roadmap
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:background} provides background and reviews
related literature. Section~\ref{sec:data} describes our data
and empirical strategy. Section~\ref{sec:results} presents our
main findings. Section~\ref{sec:robustness} discusses robustness
checks. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
% Lead with the main finding
Table~\ref{tab:main} presents our main results. Column (1) shows
the baseline OLS specification without controls. The coefficient
on [TREATMENT VARIABLE] is [POINT ESTIMATE] (s.e. = [SE]),
statistically significant at the [1/5/10] percent level.
% Add controls incrementally
In column (2), we add [CONTROL SET 1]. The point estimate
[increases/decreases slightly/remains stable] to [ESTIMATE].
Column (3) includes [CONTROL SET 2] and adds [FIXED EFFECTS].
Our preferred specification in column (4) includes [FULL CONTROLS]
and yields [FINAL ESTIMATE].
% Interpret magnitude
To gauge economic significance, note that [INTERPRETATION].
A one standard deviation increase in [X] is associated with
a [Y] percent [increase/decrease] in [OUTCOME], or roughly
[COMPARISON TO MEAN/OTHER BENCHMARK].
% Brief mention of mechanisms/heterogeneity if relevant
Table~\ref{tab:hetero} explores heterogeneity by [DIMENSION].
We find that the effect is [larger/concentrated among]
[SUBGROUP], suggesting that [INTERPRETATION].
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Main Results: Effect of X on Y}
\label{tab:main}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline\hline
& (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) \\
& OLS & + Controls & + FE & Preferred \\
\hline
Treatment & 0.052*** & 0.048*** & 0.041** & 0.039** \\
& (0.012) & (0.011) & (0.015) & (0.016) \\
\\
Controls & No & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
Fixed Effects & No & No & Yes & Yes \\
Cluster SE & No & No & No & Yes \\
\\
Observations & 10,000 & 9,850 & 9,850 & 9,850 \\
R-squared & 0.05 & 0.12 & 0.35 & 0.35 \\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize Notes: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.} \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize Standard errors in parentheses.} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
% Restate question and answer
This paper examined [RESEARCH QUESTION]. Using [METHOD/DATA],
we found that [MAIN FINDING]. This result is robust to
[ROBUSTNESS CHECKS].
% Implications
Our findings have several implications. For policy, they suggest
that [POLICY IMPLICATION]. For theory, they provide support for
[THEORETICAL MECHANISM] and challenge [ALTERNATIVE VIEW].
% Limitations (brief, honest)
Several limitations warrant mention. First, [LIMITATION 1:
e.g., external validity]. Second, [LIMITATION 2: e.g.,
data constraints]. Future research could address these by
[SUGGESTION].
% Future directions
This paper opens several avenues for future work.
[DIRECTION 1]. [DIRECTION 2]. We hope our findings
stimulate further research on [BROADER TOPIC].