Free SKILL.md scraped from GitHub. Clone the repo or copy the file directly into your Claude Code skills directory.
npx versuz@latest install brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-skills-41-sticerd-eee-sewage-econometrics-check-skills-slide-excgit clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research.gitcp Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research/SKILL.MD ~/.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-skills-41-sticerd-eee-sewage-econometrics-check-skills-slide-exc/SKILL.md--- name: slide-excellence description: Multi-agent review for research presentation slides in the sewage-house-prices project (visual, econometric fidelity, proofreading, substance). Use for comprehensive quality check before milestones. argument-hint: "[TEX filename]" allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Write", "Task"] context: fork --- # Slide Excellence Review Run a comprehensive multi-dimensional review of research presentation slides. Multiple agents analyze the file independently, then results are synthesized. ## Steps ### 1. Identify the File Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for the filename. Resolve path in `docs/conferences/`. ### 2. Run Review Agents in Parallel **Agent 1: Visual Audit** (slide-auditor) - Overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, spacing, images - Save: `docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_visual_audit.md` **Agent 2: Econometric Fidelity Review** (econometrics-reviewer) - Every quantitative claim on slides must be traceable to the paper (`docs/overleaf/_main.tex`) - Check: coefficients, standard errors, sample sizes, p-values match paper tables/figures - Check: identification strategy correctly described (hedonic pricing, repeat sales, long-difference, DiD, upstream/downstream) - Check: treatment variables defined correctly (spill_count/spill_hrs, 12/24hr counting methodology) - Check: confidence intervals and significance stars consistent with paper - Check: no causal language without identification support - Save: `docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_econometrics_report.md` **Agent 3: Proofreading** (proofreader) - Grammar, typos, consistency, academic quality, citations - Save: `docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_report.md` **Agent 4: TikZ Review** (only if file contains TikZ) - Label overlaps, geometric accuracy, visual semantics - Save: `docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_tikz_review.md` **Agent 5: Substance Review** (domain correctness) - Verify environmental economics claims are accurate - Check EDM/water company institutional context is correct - Verify spatial econometrics descriptions match methodology - Check hedonic pricing theory correctly invoked - Verify England housing market characterisation - Save: `docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_substance_review.md` ### 3. Synthesize Combined Summary ```markdown # Slide Excellence Review: [Filename] ## Overall Quality Score: [EXCELLENT / GOOD / NEEDS WORK / POOR] | Dimension | Critical | Medium | Low | |-----------|----------|--------|-----| | Visual/Layout | | | | | Econometric Fidelity | | | | | Proofreading | | | | | Substance | | | | ### Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required) ### Medium Issues (Next Revision) ### Recommended Next Steps ``` ## Quality Score Rubric | Score | Critical | Medium | Meaning | |-------|----------|--------|---------| | Excellent | 0-2 | 0-5 | Ready to present | | Good | 3-5 | 6-15 | Minor refinements | | Needs Work | 6-10 | 16-30 | Significant revision | | Poor | 11+ | 31+ | Major restructuring |