Skip to content

strategize

Category: drafting
Field: —
License: none declared
Updated: 2026-05-11
Stages: paper-drafting

Strategize

Design an identification strategy, pre-analysis plan, or formal theory section by dispatching the appropriate creator (Strategist or Theorist) and its paired critic.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — mode keyword followed by research question or path to research spec.

Modes

/strategize [question] or /strategize strategy [question] — Identification Strategy

Design the causal identification strategy.

Agents: Strategist → strategist-critic Output: Strategy memo + robustness plan + falsification tests

Workflow: 1. Pre-Strategy Report (mandatory). Before proposing any strategy, the Strategist must output a structured report proving it read the discovery inputs:

Markdown
### Pre-Strategy Report
**Research spec:** [path or "not found"]
**Literature review:** [path or "not found"]
**Data assessment:** [path or "not found"]
**Domain profile:** [loaded / not found]

**Research question:** [one sentence from spec]
**Key findings from literature:**
- [What methods have been used for this question]
- [What gaps remain]
**Available data:**
- [Dataset name] — [key variables, coverage, access]
- [Variation available for identification]: [describe]
**Candidate designs from domain profile:** [list relevant designs]

Proceeding to strategy design.

If research spec, literature review, or data assessment are missing, the Strategist proceeds with ASSUMED placeholders — but flags each clearly.

  1. Read .claude/references/domain-profile.md for common identification strategies in the field
  2. Dispatch Strategist to produce:
  3. Strategy memo: design choice, estimand, assumptions, comparison group
  4. Pseudo-code: implementation sketch
  5. Robustness plan: ordered list of checks with rationale
  6. Falsification tests: what SHOULD NOT show effects
  7. Referee objection anticipation: top 5 objections with responses
  8. Dispatch strategist-critic to review through 4 phases:
  9. Phase 1: Claim identification (design, estimand, treatment, control)
  10. Phase 2: Core design validity (assumption checks, sanity checks)
  11. Phase 3: Inference soundness (clustering, multiple testing)
  12. Phase 4: Polish and completeness (robustness, citations)
  13. If CRITICAL issues found, iterate (max 3 rounds per three-strikes)
  14. Save memo to quality_reports/strategy_memo_[topic].md
  15. Save review to quality_reports/strategy_memo_[topic]_review.md
  16. Generate HTML version and refresh dashboard:
    Bash
    python3 scripts/generate_html_report.py strategy-review quality_reports/strategy_memo_[topic]_review.md
python3 scripts/generate_dashboard.py
  17. Save decision record → quality_reports/decisions/strategy_[topic].md Using templates/decision-record.md, record:
  18. Decision: The chosen identification strategy (design + estimator)
  19. Alternatives: Other designs the Strategist considered (e.g., IV, RDD, SC, selection-on-observables)
  20. Why rejected: For each, the specific reason (no valid instrument, insufficient density at cutoff, no clean donor pool, etc.)
  21. Key assumptions: What must hold (parallel trends, exclusion restriction, continuity, etc.)
  22. What would invalidate: What findings would force a strategy change (pre-trends failure, weak first stage, manipulation at cutoff)

/strategize pap [spec] — Pre-Analysis Plan

Draft a pre-analysis plan following AEA/OSF/EGAP standards.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to research spec file, a topic, or interactive for guided interview.

  • If $ARGUMENTS includes a file path: read it (research spec from /discover interview)
  • If $ARGUMENTS includes interactive: conduct the guided PAP interview (see below)
  • Otherwise: treat as topic and draft with ASSUMED placeholders marked clearly

Agents: Strategist (in PAP mode), optionally strategist-critic Output: Pre-analysis plan document

Interactive PAP Interview (6-Question Guided Flow)

When invoked as /strategize pap interactive, ask these questions one at a time before drafting:

  1. What is the research question?
  2. What is the study design? (RCT / natural experiment / quasi-experimental / observational)
  3. What are the primary outcome variables? (names, measurement, data source)
  4. What is the identification strategy? (randomization mechanism / treatment assignment / source of variation)
  5. What subgroup analyses are pre-specified? (with justification for each)
  6. What multiple testing concerns exist? (number of primary outcomes, family-wise error rate plan)

After all 6 answers are collected, proceed to PAP drafting.

PAP Sections

Dispatch Strategist in PAP mode to produce all standard sections:

  1. Study overview — research question, design, treatment, control
  2. Outcomes — primary, secondary, mechanism variables with measurement details
  3. Estimating equations — with full notation protocol
  4. Subgroup analyses — pre-specified, with justification for each
  5. Multiple testing correction — Bonferroni / Benjamini-Hochberg / Romano-Wolf (specify which and why)
  6. Power calculations — MDE, baseline statistics, sample size, assumptions stated explicitly with sensitivity
  7. Sample and exclusion rules — inclusion criteria, attrition handling, outlier treatment
  8. Data and analysis — sources, software, randomization/assignment mechanism
  9. Timeline — data collection, analysis, registration dates
  10. Deviations log — empty template for tracking post-registration changes

Platform-Specific PAP Templates

Ask the user which registry platform they plan to use (if unclear from context):

AEA RCT Registry: - Most structured format. All fields required. - Must be registered before intervention begins. - Strict section ordering: hypotheses → outcomes → analysis → power. - Requires IRB information and funding sources.

OSF (Open Science Framework): - More flexible format. Good for observational studies and natural experiments. - Allows iterative updates with version history. - Less rigid section structure — can adapt to study design. - Supports pre-registration of observational/archival studies.

EGAP (Evidence in Governance and Politics): - Development economics and political science focused. - Additional governance and ethics questions required. - Emphasizes pre-specification of heterogeneous treatment effects. - Requires description of implementing partners and field conditions.

Observational Study PAP Adaptation

For observational, quasi-experimental, or natural experiment designs, adapt the PAP template:

  • Identification strategy replaces randomization — describe the source of exogenous variation
  • Comparison group replaces control group — define who is compared to whom and why
  • Identification assumption discussion — explicitly state and defend each assumption
  • Placebo and falsification tests — pre-specify what SHOULD NOT show effects
  • Robustness to specification choices — pre-commit to bandwidth, functional form, sample restrictions
  • Treatment of endogeneity concerns — document known threats and planned diagnostics

ASSUMED Placeholder Safety

CRITICAL: Flag every ASSUMED item clearly. The researcher must review and approve before registration.

When drafting a PAP from a topic (without a full research spec or interactive interview), many details will be assumed. For each assumed item:

  • Mark it with [ASSUMED] in bold
  • Explain what was assumed and why
  • Provide the most reasonable default but flag it for review

A registered PAP with unchecked assumptions is worse than no PAP. The final section of every PAP must include:

Markdown
### Pre-Registration Checklist

**Review every [ASSUMED] item before registering this plan.**

- [ ] [ASSUMED] Item 1 — [what was assumed]
- [ ] [ASSUMED] Item 2 — [what was assumed]

**Do not register until all items are reviewed and confirmed or corrected.**

Optional strategist-critic Review

After PAP creation, optionally dispatch the strategist-critic to review: - Are identification assumptions clearly stated and defensible? - Is the estimator choice appropriate for the design? - Are power calculation assumptions reasonable? Show sensitivity. - Are pre-specified subgroups justified (not fishing)? - Are multiple testing corrections appropriate? - Are any [ASSUMED] items potentially problematic if left uncorrected?

Save review to quality_reports/pre_analysis_plan_[topic]_review.md

Save PAP to quality_reports/pre_analysis_plan_[topic].md

/strategize theory [target] — Formal Theory Section

Produce a formal theory section: assumptions, definitions, lemmas, theorems, and proofs.

When to use: - Paper type is econometric methods (the method is the contribution) - Paper type is theory + empirics (theoretical predictions are tested) - Paper type is structural (identification of structural parameters needs formal argument) - Paper type is methodological reduced-form (the design contributes a new estimator)

Skip this mode for applied papers that use off-the-shelf estimators — the strategist's memo is sufficient.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — research question, path to strategy memo, or path to existing paper/draft.

Agents: Theorist → theorist-critic Output: Theory memo + assumptions.tex + results.tex + proofs.tex + notation glossary

Workflow: 1. Pre-Theory Report (mandatory). Before writing any math, the Theorist must output a structured report showing what was read:

Markdown
### Pre-Theory Report
**Research spec:** [path or "not found"]
**Strategy memo:** [path or "not found"]
**Existing paper/draft:** [path or "not found"]
**Domain profile:** [loaded / not found]
**Notation conventions:** [header.tex path / domain-profile notation table / "not found"]
**Bibliography base:** [path / "not found"]

**Paper type:** [econometric methods / theory+empirics / structural / methodological reduced-form]
**Theoretical object(s) to produce:** [identification / consistency / asymp. normality / influence function / DML / bootstrap / test / proposition]
**Data structure:** [iid / panel / staggered / clustered / triangular array]
**Target parameter:** [definition as functional of P]
**Estimator:** [definition]
**Assumptions anticipated:** [A1 sampling, A2 parallel trends, ...]

Proceeding to theory drafting.

If strategy memo or paper type is missing, the Theorist flags it and asks before proceeding.

  1. Read .claude/references/domain-profile.md for the Theoretical Foundational References table and Author Team table.
  2. Dispatch Theorist to produce:
  3. quality_reports/theory/[topic]/theory_memo.md
  4. quality_reports/theory/[topic]/assumptions.tex
  5. quality_reports/theory/[topic]/results.tex
  6. quality_reports/theory/[topic]/proofs.tex
  7. quality_reports/theory/[topic]/notation_glossary.md
  8. Dispatch theorist-critic to review through 4 sequential phases:
  9. Phase 1: Claim identification (object type, target parameter, estimator, assumptions)
  10. Phase 2: Proof validity (logical, measurability, expansions, identification, asymptotic distribution) — early-stop on critical gaps
  11. Phase 3: Assumption minimality + statement calibration + notation consistency (INV-7)
  12. Phase 4: Citation fidelity + linkage to empirical claims + exposition
  13. If CRITICAL issues found, iterate (max 3 rounds per three-strikes). Escalation target: User.
  14. Save review to quality_reports/theory_[topic]_review.md
  15. Save decision record → quality_reports/decisions/theory_[topic].md Record:
  16. Decision: The theoretical objects proved (identification, asymptotic distribution, etc.)
  17. Assumptions: Full list with interpretation
  18. What's open: What the theory does NOT cover (caveats for the writer)
  19. Linkage: Which empirical claims each theorem supports

Bundled Resources

Templates

File Purpose
strategize/templates/pre-strategy-report.md Mandatory pre-check report before designing strategy
strategize/templates/strategy-memo.md Strategy memo output format (5 required sections)
strategize/templates/robustness-plan.md Ordered robustness checklist template
strategize/templates/theory-memo.md Theory section output format (assumptions, results, proofs)
strategize/templates/decision-record.md Template for documenting strategy decisions with alternatives

Design Checklists

File Design
strategize/templates/design-checklists/did.md Difference-in-Differences (parallel trends, staggered, estimator selection)
strategize/templates/design-checklists/iv.md Instrumental Variables (relevance, exclusion, monotonicity, LATE)
strategize/templates/design-checklists/rdd.md Regression Discontinuity (bandwidth, manipulation, balance)
strategize/templates/design-checklists/event-study.md Event Study (pre-trends, binning, heterogeneity-robust estimators)
strategize/templates/design-checklists/structural.md Structural Estimation (model environment, identification, counterfactuals)
strategize/templates/design-checklists/descriptive.md Descriptive/Measurement (construction, validation, decomposition)

PAP Templates

File Registry
strategize/templates/pap-templates/aea-rct.md AEA RCT Registry (most structured, all fields required)
strategize/templates/pap-templates/osf.md OSF (flexible, good for observational studies)
strategize/templates/pap-templates/egap.md EGAP (development/political science, governance emphasis)

References

File Purpose
strategize/references/pap-interview-flow.md 6-question guided interview for building a PAP interactively

Gotchas

File Purpose
strategize/gotchas.md Known failure points: design selection traps, memo pitfalls, PAP anti-patterns, theory-mode caveats

Principles

  • Strategist proposes, strategist-critic critiques. Adversarial pairing catches design flaws early.
  • Theorist proves, theorist-critic checks the proof. Proof validity gates everything downstream -- notation, citations, polish.
  • Strategy memo is the contract. Once approved, the Coder implements it faithfully.
  • Catch problems before coding. A flawed strategy caught now saves weeks of wasted analysis.
  • Multiple strategies are OK. Present trade-offs and let the user choose.
  • The user decides. If Strategist and strategist-critic disagree after 3 rounds, the user resolves it.
  • Pre-specification is the point. Everything in a PAP is decided before seeing outcomes.
  • Be honest about what's exploratory. Label subgroups and secondary outcomes clearly.
  • Power calculations require assumptions. State every assumption. Show sensitivity.
  • A PAP is a commitment device. Make sure the researcher understands what they're committing to.