devils-advocate

To generate a peer-review critique for an economics paper before submission, provide your manuscript's specific section or finding as an ARGUMENTS input to receive 5-7 structured challenging questions. Each question includes an explicit threat, response, vulnerability, and recommended action for targeted review.

A devil's advocate critique is a structured referee-style review that identifies identification strategy weaknesses by generating 5-7 skeptical questions challenging a manuscript's argument. It spans risk areas like endogeneity, data measurement, specification robustness, and theoretical framing to expose vulnerabilities before publication.

Yes, you can target the critique to a specific specification or data interpretation section by supplying that text through the ARGUMENTS input. The skill processes the provided excerpt and generates customized challenging questions focused on the robustness and interpretation of that exact section.

The structured output format for manuscript questioning consists of 5-7 items, each containing four explicit fields: threat, best available response, remaining vulnerability, and recommended action. This repeatable format ensures authors receive actionable feedback to address identification and specification weaknesses.

This peer-review critique works for both theoretical framing and empirical robustness checks across economics papers. The generated questions span five risk areas including Identification, Data, Specification, Interpretation, and Literature Contribution, ensuring comprehensive coverage of both empirical and theoretical arguments.

You should not use an automated referee critique when you lack a specific argument, finding, or specification to challenge, as the skill requires an ARGUMENTS input to function. It is designed for targeted pre-submission robustness checks of explicit text rather than general manuscript brainstorming.