jet-replication-and-data-policy — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited jet-replication-and-data-policy (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.
them well
no JAE-Data-Archive-style replication archive. Most JET papers are pure theory, so the main reproducibility object is the proof and any supplementary appendix.
repository and cite/link it, or state why the data cannot be shared. Data statements are supported in the submission flow and appear with the published article.
computation, say so plainly. If there are numerical examples, simulations, or computer-assisted proof steps, make those artifacts reproducible and link/deposit them where appropriate.
preparation at submission. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from using generative-AI tools during evaluation.
JET's Option C rule is data-focused, but for a theory paper any numerical content should still be reproducible because it strengthens the paper and pre-empts referee doubt:
requirements.txt, Project.toml/Manifest.toml, recorded toolbox versions)data statement
| Computational content in the paper | Artifact worth sharing | Channel that fits |
|---|---|---|
| Symbolic verification of closed forms (e.g., checking eq. (7) of a screening model) | one SymPy/Mathematica script per theorem | repo link in the data statement |
| Counterexample found by search | the search code plus a certificate script confirming the final example violates the conclusion | repo; the certificate logic also goes in the paper |
| Computed equilibria (e.g., a numerical fixed point for a dynamic-contract example) | solver script with tolerances and pinned environment | repo or Mendeley Data |
| Experimental/empirical test of the theory (rare at JET) | data, cleaning, and analysis scripts | repository / Mendeley Data / Data in Brief, with Option C statement |
| Pure theory, no computation | no archive to manufacture | no-data statement |
Long technical arguments go to an online appendix / supplementary file the referee can read.
cross-references from the main text (e.g., "Appendix S.2"), so checking it never requires re-deriving the body.
arithmetic, symbolic simplification — say so inside the proof and ship the checker; the step is only as credible as a referee's ability to re-run it.
the journal's current author guidelines before splitting files.
README — companion code for "<title>" (JET submission)
verify_thm2_bound.py → re-derives eq. (7)–(9); confirms the Theorem 2 bound is attained (Example 1)
search_counterexample.jl → finds the Example 3 economy; seed 20250114; runtime < 1 min
check_thm4_cases.py → exhaustive check of the 12 finite cases cited in Appendix B, Step 3
env: requirements.txt / Manifest.toml (pinned)
Every reported number in the paper appears in the output of exactly one script above.【Has data/computation?】none / data / computation / both
【Option C】repository citation/link, or no-data/cannot-share statement? [Y/N]
【Reproducible】master script + pinned env + seeds + README? [Y/N]
【AI disclosure】declared at submission? [Y/N]
【Next】jet-submission~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.