joe-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited joe-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 joe- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Econometrics (JoE). Default assumption unless the user says otherwise: the target is JoE — an Elsevier journal (founded 1973) for substantive econometric methodology, covering identification, estimation, testing, decision, and prediction problems in economic research, plus applications of econometric techniques. The center of gravity is a new estimator, test, identification result, or asymptotic theory, defended with proofs and Monte Carlo evidence*; purely empirical work without a methodological advance is typically out of scope.
Operational tells you are at JoE and not a sibling: current official pages split portal guidance (ScienceDirect/new-submission links to Editorial Manager; JoE Google Sites and the resubmission flow still reference Editorial Express), a USD $75 nonrefundable fee for new submissions and resubmissions over one year, a 250-word abstract, single-anonymized review by a minimum of two referees after editor screening, Elsevier source-file rules plus Editorial Express resubmission PDF norms, and three tracks: Regular, Annals, and Themed Issues. Co-Editors-in-Chief: Michael Jansson (UC Berkeley) and Aureo de Paula (UCL). Re-verify volatile specifics (portal routing, editors, open themed calls) on the official pages.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea feels incremental / "is this a real methodological contribution?" | joe-topic-selection |
| Contribution relative to the econometrics literature is fuzzy | joe-literature-positioning |
| Assumptions / regularity conditions / asymptotics not nailed down | joe-identification-strategy |
| Monte Carlo design or empirical illustration is thin | joe-data-analysis |
| The "why this matters to econometrics" framing is weak | joe-contribution-framing |
| Theorem/Monte-Carlo tables and figures are unclear | joe-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the result; proofs are hard to follow | joe-writing-style |
| Code/data archive and data-citation norms unclear | joe-replication-and-data-policy |
| Need to understand single-anonymized review / track choice | joe-review-process |
| Ready to submit; need live portal and file preflight | joe-submission |
| Received a revision request; need a response strategy | joe-rebuttal |
joe-topic-selection — confirm a genuine methodological gapjoe-literature-positioning — stake the contribution against the frontierjoe-identification-strategy — assumptions, theorems, asymptotics, proof planjoe-data-analysis — Monte Carlo design + empirical illustrationjoe-contribution-framing — articulate the general lesson for econometricsjoe-tables-figures — size/power tables and theory-illustrating figuresjoe-writing-style — make proofs legible; abstract + intro lastjoe-replication-and-data-policy — assemble code/data per Elsevier normsjoe-review-process — pick the track; anticipate refereesjoe-submission — live portal preflight (incl. fee/file proof)joe-rebuttal — after the revision requestjoe-writing-style is a late polish. Do not rewrite the intro before the theorems and Monte Carlo are settled — the claims will change.joe-literature-positioning — referees judge the methodological novelty firstjoe-rebuttal draft a response before the revised manuscript exists~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.