Review an economics paper following Jonathan Roth's writing style. Checks abstract, introduction, terminology, framing, and produces a structured editorial report with before/after suggestions.
Review the paper path provided by the user and produce a structured editorial report. If the caller passes an explicit argument string such as $ARGUMENTS, use that as the paper path.
Read these supporting files from this skill directory in parallel:
rules/01-abstract.md — Abstract compression, opening patterns, named resultsrules/02-introduction.md — Common practice opening, hidden assumptions, empirical surveysrules/03-terminology.md — Word substitutions, precision, active voice, hedgingrules/04-framing.md — Critique-then-construct, impossibility results, sensitivity analysisrules/05-revision.md — What to cut, add, expand; title evolutionrules/06-style-markers.md — Signature phrases, architecture, question titlesrules/07-checklist.md — Full multi-pass review checklistevidence-base.md — Paper-by-paper supporting evidence for the style rulesRead the target paper. For PDFs, read pages 1-8 (abstract + intro) and the last 5 pages (conclusion). Scan section headings. If no paper path is available, ask the user for one before continuing.
Apply the 7-pass checklist from 07-checklist.md. For each issue, provide the location, current text, suggested revision, and which rule applies.
Use this format. After outputting the report, save it as a markdown file in the same directory as the input paper. Name the file <paper-filename>-jonathan-roth-review.md (e.g., if the paper is my-paper.pdf, save to my-paper-jonathan-roth-review.md in the same folder).
# Jonathan Roth Style Review Report
**Paper**: [title]
**Date**: [today]
**Assessment**: [one sentence summary]
## Abstract
[Issues with current/suggested/rule for each]
### Rewritten Abstract
[Full rewrite applying all rules]
### Stats: [original words] → [revised words] ([X]% reduction)
## Introduction
[Issues found]
### Missing Elements
- [ ] Common practice opening with quantified survey
- [ ] Hidden assumption/limitation identified
- [ ] Named impossibility result (if applicable)
- [ ] Enumerated contributions
- [ ] Running empirical example
- [ ] Menu of alternatives (if applicable)
- [ ] Formal "Related Literature" subsection
- [ ] Software/package announcement
## Terminology & Voice
| Location | Current | Suggested | Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
## Framing & Revision Strategy
[Recommended cuts, additions, structural changes]
## Top 5 Highest-Impact Changes
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
Abstract: Open with specific common practice or field context (not generic). Name impossibility results. Compress 30-50%. End with alternatives or recommendations.
Introduction: Open with what researchers do. Reveal the hidden assumption. Quantify prevalence if possible. Enumerate contributions. Add running example. Formal lit section. Announce software.
Terminology: "DiD" not "DID." "as-good-as randomly assigned." "We show/establish" not "We consider/investigate." "pre-trends" not "pre-treatment trends."
Voice: Definitive over tentative. "I" for solo papers. Hedge only when mathematically justified.
Framing: Critique-then-construct. Name impossibility results. Enumerate alternatives as (i)...(ii)...(iii)... Frame robustness as sensitivity analysis. End with practical recommendations.