aejpol-tables-figures — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited aejpol-tables-figures (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Every AEJ: Policy paper should have one exhibit a policymaker could screenshot: the policy effect in interpretable units with its welfare/cost-benefit reading where possible. Examples (illustrative formats):
esttab/booktabs), no vertical rules; align decimals; consistent digits.Generate exhibits from the fitted result, not by retyping numbers (the usual source of body-vs-appendix drift). Full map: execution-with-mcp.
etable (multi-model columns) or did_summary_to_latex straight from theresult_id — one variable definition, one set of numbers, body and appendix in sync.
plot_from_result / enhanced_event_study_plot / event_study_table —axis units and the SE/clustering note baked in.
states the magnitude in interpretable units.
See a full fitted-result → exhibit chain in the JF execution walkthrough.
| Design | Workhorse figure | What the notes must state |
|---|---|---|
| DID / event study | Event-study coefficients with CI bands; flat pre-period leads visible | estimator (CS/SA), comparison group, clustering level |
| RDD | Binned means + fitted discontinuity + bandwidth | running variable, bandwidth, density-test result |
| Bunching | Empirical vs. counterfactual density at the kink | counterfactual construction, excluded region |
| RCT | Treatment-control means / dose-response with CIs | randomization unit, take-up, ITT vs. ToT |
| Welfare | MVPF / cost-per-outcome across variants, with bands | which estimates feed the ledger, assumptions |
A tax-credit paper's main table reports a coefficient of 0.08 (s.e. 0.02) on the credit. Reworked for AEJ: Policy: the lead exhibit becomes a figure of employment around the credit's introduction with a CI band, the long-run effect annotated as "+3.1 pp employment (90% CI [1.9, 4.3])," and a companion row translating it into cost per additional job with its band — the number a policymaker takes away. No asterisks; SEs in parentheses throughout.
【Headline exhibit】figure/table + the policy magnitude it carries
【Significance reporting】SEs/CIs, no asterisks? [Y/N]
【Self-contained notes】sample/units/estimator/clustering/N/dep-mean present? [Y/N]
【Policy-units translation】coefficient → cost-per-X / MVPF / incidence shown? [Y/N]
【Next step】aejpol-writing-style~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.