jep-topic-selection — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited jep-topic-selection (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.
JEP publishes accessible synthesis for a broad audience of economists, readable by 90 percent or more of the AEA membership (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). A JEP topic is judged on four axes — a topic must clear all four, not just one.
| Axis | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Breadth of interest | A labor, macro, or finance economist who does not work on this would still want to read it | Only specialists in one subfield care |
| Timeliness / "why now" | A live debate, a maturing literature, a policy moment, or a method whose lessons have spread | A topic equally publishable five years ago or five years hence with no hook |
| Synthesizability | There is a body of work to distill into a through-line and a few takeaways | A single new finding with nothing yet to synthesize |
| Accessibility ceiling | The core ideas survive translation into plain language | The contribution is the technical machinery and dies without it |
JEP is a synthesis venue, not a discovery venue. If the value is "here is my new estimate," that is a research-journal paper. If the value is "here is what we now collectively understand, and what we don't," that is JEP.
JEP often groups articles into symposia on a theme. Ask: could this topic be one panel of a conversation (e.g., three to five complementary angles on a single question)? If yes, note the companion angles — that framing strengthens both a single-article pitch and a symposium proposal (hand to jep-proposal-and-symposium).
An author has three recent papers estimating how remote work affects city wage gradients. As a research output that's a JPE/AEJ paper. As a JEP topic the question becomes broader: "What has a decade of evidence taught us about how remote work is reshaping where people live and what they earn — and what remains uncertain?" That clears all four axes: a generalist cares (it touches housing, labor, and cities), it is timely, there is now a body of work to synthesize (not one result), and the core lessons survive plain language. The author's own three papers become part of the evidence, not the point of the article.
【Topic】one sentence
【Why a non-specialist cares】[...]
【Why now】[debate / literature maturity / policy moment / method diffusion]
【Synthesizable?】body-of-work to distill: [Y/N + what]
【Survives translation?】core ideas in plain language: [Y/N]
【Venue call】JEP / JEL / research journal — because [...]
【Symposium angle】standalone / could anchor or join a symposium on [...]
【Next step】jep-proposal-and-symposium~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.