Results for “evidence-based-review”

Assesses codebase maturity using Trail of Bits' 9-category framework, producing a professional scorecard with evidence-based ratings and actionable recommendations.

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

Evaluate scientific manuscripts and grant proposals with structured, checklist-based peer review covering methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards.

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process with 5 dynamically configured reviewers, producing structured editorial decisions and revision roadmaps.

Conduct systematic literature reviews by searching multiple academic databases, synthesizing findings, and generating professionally formatted documents with verified citations.

根据研究者提供的**研究计划书（Research Proposal）**执行基于**外国（美国/欧盟/英国/日本/跨国）制度环境**的公司金融类实证研究全流程。**启动后第一件事：根据计划书的主题、识别策略、贡献边际与样本范围，从外国 CF 顶刊池（AER/QJE/JPE/JF/JFE/RFS/JFQA/JAR/JAE/MS/JCF/JBF 等 25+ 期刊）中推荐 5 本最匹配的目标期刊（[J1]–[J5]），等待研究者明确选定一本；该期刊决定 main.tex 的 bibliographystyle、Section 骨架、Introduction 风格与表注规范**。然后用 Python 完成数据清洗、描述性统计、基准回归、内生性检验（IV/2SLS、DML）、平行趋势、异质性、机制、稳健性检验与图表绘制。LaTeX 表格和图像严格遵循 template/ 示例格式，研究逻辑与排版严格遵循 rule/ 下的《通用实证研究逻辑与规范总结》与《回归表写作规范总结》。数据集与政策集从 asset/ 中按计划书中的关键词检索（WRDS / NBER/Fed releases / FRED / 全球宏观库）。**当计划书预期的实证结果无法实现时（系数不显著、平行趋势不通过、IV 弱工具、机制不成立等），skill 自动切换备选方案直至完成研究项目**。最终交付物：Python 代码 + LaTeX 表格 + 图像（.pdf/.png）。触发条件：研究者提交研究计划书（含 X→Y 假设、识别策略、样本、政策冲击等）。

Cost-benefit analysis. Produces economic NPV and financial NPV side by side, with BCR, optimism bias (with mitigation), Marginal Excess Tax Burden, real-terms rebasing, WELLBY / QALY / VPF wellbeing valuation, sensitivity, switching values, EANC for unequal-life options, validation gate, and a one-line headline verdict (socially worthwhile vs financially self-sustaining). Backed by the greenbook R package (HM Treasury Green Book primitives) when available, with graceful fallback. Supports HMT Green Book, EU Better Regulation, World Bank, ADB, and Victorian HVHR. Reads a longlist markdown file directly via --from.

Revise an academic paper based on internal review comments. Reads review report or annotated manuscript, then applies revisions one by one with user approval. Trigger when user says "self revise" / "paper-selfrevise" / "内部修改" / "根据审稿意见修改".

Generate academic referee reports for economics/finance papers, followed by a 150-word letter to the editor with recommendation (Reject / Major Revision) and Kai Wu signature. Two modes (normal / high-level), configurable number of comments; recommendation choice drives evaluation tone (Reject → negative, Major Revision → neutral). Trigger when user says "referee report" / "write referee report" / "审稿报告" / "写审稿意见" / "generate referee report" / "review this paper".

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research.