Individual skill
worlddev-referee-strategy
Use when anticipating the objections a World Development (WD) manuscript will draw under double-anonymized, multidisciplinary review. Pre-empts referee pushback before submission; it does not invent evidence or citations.
World-Development-Skills/skills/worlddev-referee-strategy/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- 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)
- 1,405
- 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
- engineering 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 · 5,233 bytes
Read excerpt
# Referee Strategy (worlddev-referee-strategy)
## When to trigger
- Before submitting, to war-game the reports the paper will draw
- The paper sits between disciplines and could face one economist and one non-economist referee with incompatible standards
- A previous WD or sibling-journal rejection cited objections that were never addressed
- The development relevance is implicit and a referee could read the paper as "just an applied estimate"
- You need to decide what to fix now vs. what to defend in the response letter
## The WD review reality
WD review is **double-anonymized**: at least two independent referees, who cannot see who you are (and you cannot see them). Because WD is multidisciplinary, the referee pool is **heterogeneous in method and standard** — a single paper may be read by an applied economist who wants tighter identification and a development sociologist who wants richer context and reflexivity. The strategic implication: **a WD paper must satisfy more than one evidentiary culture at once.** A paper that is bulletproof to one referee community but illegible or naive to the other is the classic WD split-decision that stalls.
