Individual skill
rfs-topic-selection
Use when the research question or contribution is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Pressure-tests novelty-plus-rigor fit and drafts the contribution claim; does NOT design the empirics or position the literature in detail.
Review-of-Financial-Studies-Skills/skills/rfs-topic-selection/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- No
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Not checked yet
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,409
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- research Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,428 bytes
Read excerpt
# Topic Selection & Novelty Fit (rfs-topic-selection)
## When to trigger
- The idea feels incremental, derivative, or "me-too"
- You can describe a method or dataset but not the *new question* it answers
- You are unsure whether the topic clears RFS's novelty bar (vs. a field journal)
- A coauthor says "this is clean but is it interesting enough for RFS?"
## The RFS fit test: novelty AND rigor
RFS prizes both. Score the idea on both axes before investing in empirics.
**Novelty axis — what is genuinely new?** At least one must be a strong "yes":