jep-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited jep-workflow (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.
This is the router. It tells you *which jep- skill to use at the current stage* of an article aimed at the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) — the open-access, non-technical synthesis journal of the American Economic Association, founded 1987. JEP is not a primary-research outlet. It rewards articles that synthesize and communicate a body of economics to a broad audience — readable by 90 percent or more of the AEA membership — avoiding formal models and heavy econometrics in the body. The product is a compelling, accessible, balanced essay*, not an identification strategy or a replication package.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JEP. Operational tells that you are at JEP and not a research journal or its sibling Journal of Economic Literature (JEL): JEP is largely invited / commissioned and organized in symposia; almost all articles begin as a 2–5 page proposal emailed to [email protected] (about 10–15% of published articles originate as unsolicited proposals); the writing must be legible to non-specialists; there are recurring features ("Recommendations for Further Reading", retrospectives). Editor as of 2026: Heidi Williams; Managing Editor Timothy Taylor (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the official AEA pages.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the topic is broad/timely/synthesizable for non-specialists | jep-topic-selection |
| Need to pitch the article or a symposium to the editors | jep-proposal-and-symposium |
| Structure is a literature dump, not a story/argument | jep-narrative-arc |
| Prose is jargon-heavy; notation everywhere; reads like a working paper | jep-accessibility-and-translation |
| Evidence is presented with equations/regressions a general reader can't follow | jep-evidence-without-equations |
| Figures/tables are dense, not self-explanatory | jep-exhibits-for-general-readers |
| Voice is dry/hedged; abstract and opening don't land | jep-writing-style |
| Reads as advocacy; competing views or uncertainty underplayed | jep-balance-and-objectivity |
| Need to negotiate scope/length/symposium with the editorial team | jep-editor-strategy |
| Ready to email the proposal/manuscript; need a preflight | jep-submission |
| An editor asked for revisions (accessibility/balance/length/framing) | jep-revision |
jep-topic-selection — confirm the topic is JEP-shaped (broad, timely, synthesizable)jep-proposal-and-symposium — craft the 2–5 page proposal or symposium pitchjep-narrative-arc — structure the essay as an argument, not a surveyjep-accessibility-and-translation — strip jargon/notation without dumbing downjep-evidence-without-equations — present evidence credibly with minimal mathjep-exhibits-for-general-readers — build self-explanatory figures/tablesjep-writing-style — the JEP voice; abstract and opening lastjep-balance-and-objectivity — fair to competing views; honest about uncertaintyjep-editor-strategy — scope/length/symposium negotiation with the teamjep-submission — email-proposal preflight (accessibility bar, disclosure, JEL)jep-revision — after the editor's letterjep-writing-style is a late polish; do not perfect sentences before the narrative arc and the balance settle.jep-exhibits-for-general-readers polish a dense figure while the argument is still a literature dumpJEP essays come in a few shapes, and the bottleneck differs. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| "State of a field" synthesis | scope too narrow or too technical | jep-topic-selection → jep-narrative-arc |
| Symposium contribution (invited) | fit with the symposium frame + length | jep-editor-strategy → jep-narrative-arc |
| Translating one's own technical agenda | jargon/notation; over-claiming | jep-accessibility-and-translation → jep-balance-and-objectivity |
| Policy-relevant debate | reads as advocacy; uncertainty buried | jep-balance-and-objectivity |
A user says: "I've drafted a 9,000-word piece summarizing my structural IO research for JEP, but a colleague says it reads like my JPE paper with the proofs deleted." That is two distinct JEP problems — not yet translated for a general reader and no story for a non-specialist — owned by jep-accessibility-and-translation and jep-narrative-arc. Route there first; only once a non-IO economist can follow the argument and one memorable through-line carries it do you return to jep-writing-style and jep-exhibits-for-general-readers. And before any of that, since this is an unsolicited full draft, jep-proposal-and-symposium would convert it into the 2–5 page proposal the editors actually want.
if editor_letter_arrived: -> jep-revision
elif ready_to_email: -> jep-submission
elif reads_as_advocacy: -> jep-balance-and-objectivity
elif exhibits_dense: -> jep-exhibits-for-general-readers
elif math_or_jargon_heavy: -> jep-evidence-without-equations / jep-accessibility-and-translation
elif structure_is_a_survey: -> jep-narrative-arc
elif no_pitch_yet: -> jep-proposal-and-symposium
else: -> jep-topic-selection~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.