Individual skill
worlddev-robustness
Use when results may be sensitive — to specification, sample, measurement, or inference for quantitative work, or to interpretation and triangulation for qualitative work — in a World Development (WD) manuscript. Organizes checks by threat; it does not invent evidence or citations.
World-Development-Skills/skills/worlddev-robustness/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
- security 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 · 6,173 bytes
Read excerpt
# Robustness & Trustworthiness (worlddev-robustness)
## When to trigger
- The headline result moves under plausible alternative specifications
- A referee suspects the finding is driven by one region, one wave, or one measurement choice
- Development data are messy (recall error, measurement in informal economies, attrition) and this is unaddressed
- A qualitative finding rests on a few vivid quotes with no account of disconfirming evidence
- The robustness section is a mechanical dump of appendix tables organized by table, not by threat
## Organize by threat, not by table
The single biggest WD robustness failure is a wall of appendix tables with no logic. A WD referee — often from a different discipline than the author — wants to see that you **identified the threats to your specific claim and addressed each one**. Structure the robustness work as a short list of named threats, each with the check that retires it and a one-line verdict. For each threat: *what would break the claim, what test isolates it, what the test shows.*