Menu

Individual skill

arecon-evidence-standards

0upvotes

Use when appraising the credibility of the primary studies an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review synthesizes, and when calibrating comprehensiveness, balance, and fair treatment of competing views. Weighs evidence and audits even-handedness; it does not design the spine (arecon-organizing-framework) or run your own identification.

Annual-Review-of-Economics-Skills/skills/arecon-evidence-standards/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

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)
1,403
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Evidence Appraisal & Balance (arecon-evidence-standards)

## When to trigger

- The framework is set and you are filling cells with conflicting empirical results
- You must decide whether "the literature finds X" is actually supported, or only loosely
- The field has rival schools, a live controversy, or estimates that disagree
- You are a contributor to this literature and worry the review tilts toward your own work

## Appraising evidence you did not produce

An ARE review **runs no identification of its own** — there is no design to defend, no replication package of your data. Instead you act as the field's **referee-of-record for adjacent readers**: you judge how much weight each primary study can bear so the review weighs the evidence correctly. Make the appraisal explicit, not implicit:

- **DID / event study:** does the cited paper use TWFE on staggered timing without addressing heterogeneity bias? A study that predates Callaway–Sant'Anna / Sun–Abraham corrections may not support the magnitude you attribute to it — flag it.
Back to top