replication-package - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: replication-package description: Assemble a submission-ready replication package to the AEA Data and Code Availability Standard (DCAS) / openICPSR / Social Science Reproduction Platform expectations — standard replication README, dataset manifest, computational-requirements capture, a Table/Figure → script:line map, and a confidential-data deposit plan. Use when user says "build the replication package", "prepare the openICPSR deposit", "make the AEA data and code package", "DCAS compliance", "assemble the deposit for the journal", or after a paper is accepted and the journal's data editor needs the package. NOT a numeric verifier — it calls /audit-reproducibility to confirm claims reproduce before packaging. argument-hint: "[manuscript path] [outputs-dir] (outputs-dir defaults to scripts/R/_outputs/)" allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Write", "Bash", "Task"] effort: high

Replication Package

Produce the deposit an economist hands a journal at acceptance: a directory tree (data/, code/, output/, README) plus a DCAS compliance checklist, built to the AEA Data and Code Availability Standard, openICPSR deposit expectations, and the Social Science Reproduction Platform reproduction protocol. This skill moves the repo from auditing reproducibility to producing the deposit — /audit-reproducibility proves the numbers; this skill packages everything a third party needs to regenerate them from scratch.

Core principle: the package is reproducible by a stranger with the data and the README — no tacit knowledge, no "ask the author" steps. Every table and figure maps to the exact script and line that produces it.

When to use

At acceptance. The journal's data editor (AEA, REStud, JPE, EJ, ...) requests a DCAS-compliant deposit before the paper is typeset.
Before an openICPSR / Zenodo / Dataverse upload. Build the tree and README once, locally, before the web upload.
Pre-submission dry run. Catch the "I never wrote down where Table 3 comes from" gap while it is cheap to fix.
Confidential-data papers. Produce the access-restricted-data note and a runnable-on-restricted-data package even when the data itself cannot be deposited.

Inputs

$0 — path to the manuscript (.tex, .qmd, .md, .pdf). Required (the source of the Table/Figure inventory).
$1 — outputs directory. Defaults to scripts/R/_outputs/. Recognised alternatives: scripts/stata/_outputs/, scripts/python/_outputs/, _targets/objects/.

Workflow

Phase 0: Pre-flight — detect language(s) and outputs

Detect the analysis language(s) by scanning for scripts/R/*.R (+ renv.lock / DESCRIPTION), scripts/stata/*.do, scripts/python/*.py (+ requirements.txt / environment.yml / pyproject.toml). A project may be polyglot — record all detected languages.
Locate the outputs directory ($1) and the one-command entry point (00_run_all.R, 99_run_all.do, run.py, Makefile). If none exists, flag it — DCAS requires a single master script.
If quality_reports/passports/<paper-slug>.yaml exists, load it; its claims: entries are the authoritative Table/Figure → source_file:source_line map for Phase 1.

Phase 1: Generate the standard replication README

Write replication_package/README.md (the AEA template, fields below). Leave a [FILL] marker on any field you cannot infer — never fabricate a data source or license.

Overview / paper citation — title, authors, abstract one-liner.
Data Availability Statement — for each dataset: public / restricted / proprietary, and whether it is redistributed in the package. This is the single most-rejected DCAS field; be explicit.
Dataset manifest — a table, one row per file: filename | description | source (URL/citation) | access (public / DUA / purchase) | license | provided in package? (Y/N).
Computational requirements — OS, software + versions (R / Stata / Python), key packages, approximate runtime, RAM, any HPC/cluster need.
Step-by-step run instructions — the single master-script invocation, then the expected outputs.
Table/Figure → script:line map — one row per exhibit: Exhibit | Program | Line | Output file. Read from the passport if present; otherwise grep the manuscript for \input{} / \includegraphics{} and trace each to the producing script. This map is what a reproducer follows; it is the heart of the package.

Phase 2: Capture the computational environment

Generate the dependency lockfile(s) and an environment snapshot for each detected language. Prefer /capture-environment if available; otherwise produce them directly:

R — renv::snapshot() → renv.lock; sessionInfo() → output/sessionInfo.txt.
Python — pip freeze → requirements.txt (or export the conda environment.yml); record python --version.
Stata — creturn list / about → output/stata_version.txt; confirm every .do pins version NN (per stata-code-conventions.md).
Container (recommended by DCAS for non-trivial setups) — scaffold a Dockerfile pinning the base image + language version.

Phase 3: Confirm claims reproduce before packaging

Run /audit-reproducibility $0 $1 (passport-aware if the YAML exists).

Any FAIL (out of tolerance, no named alternative) → block: do not assemble a package around numbers that do not reproduce. Surface the failing claims and stop.
EXPLAINED (out of tolerance with a recorded named alternative) → allowed; carry the note into the README's known-discrepancies section.
All PASS / PASS + EXPLAINED → proceed to Phase 4.

Phase 4: Assemble the tree + DCAS checklist

Create the deposit skeleton (copy/symlink real files where they exist; leave [FILL] placeholders otherwise):

replication_package/
├── README.md                # Phase 1
├── data/
│   ├── raw/                 # as-obtained (or a pointer + DUA note if restricted)
│   └── analysis/            # constructed analysis files
├── code/                    # numbered scripts + master script (00_run_all.* / 99_run_all.do)
└── output/                  # tables/, figures/, logs/, sessionInfo.txt, renv.lock / requirements.txt

Then emit the DCAS compliance checklist (replication_package/DCAS_checklist.md): Data Availability Statement present · every dataset has source + access + license · master script present and one-command · computational requirements stated · every Table/Figure mapped to program:line · no absolute/machine-specific paths in code · seeds set for any stochastic step · license file (a code license such as BSD/MIT + a data-usage statement). Mark each PASS / FAIL / [FILL].

Phase 5: Confidential-data handling

Per .claude/rules/confidential-data.md, scan the manifest for restricted, proprietary, or PII-bearing inputs (administrative records, IRS/Census RDC, proprietary panels, linked health data).

Never copy restricted data into replication_package/data/. Replace it with a pointer: the provider, the application/DUA process, the access cost, and the expected wait time.
Generate replication_package/data/access-restricted-data.md — the access-restricted-data note a reproducer follows to obtain the same inputs.
Confirm the code still ships (DCAS requires runnable-on-restricted-data code even when the data cannot be deposited), and that any committed extracts pass disclosure-avoidance (cell suppression / rounding) before they enter output/.

Output / Report format

Write quality_reports/replication_package_[paper-slug].md:

# Replication Package: [Paper Title]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]  **Languages:** [R / Stata / Python]  **Deposit target:** [openICPSR / Zenodo / Dataverse]

## DCAS checklist
| Item | Status |
|---|---|
| Data Availability Statement | PASS / FAIL / [FILL] |
| Dataset manifest (source · access · license) | ... |
| One-command master script | ... |
| Computational requirements | ... |
| Table/Figure → program:line map | ... |
| No machine-specific paths · seeds set | ... |
| Reproducibility audit (Phase 3) | PASS / EXPLAINED-only / FAIL (blocker) |
| Confidential-data note (if applicable) | ... |

## Skeleton built at
replication_package/  (tree + README + checklist)

## Open [FILL] items
[one line per unresolved field]

Exit behavior

All checklist items PASS (or PASS + [FILL]) and audit PASS/EXPLAINED-only: exit 0; print the tree location and any [FILL] items for the author to complete.
Any audit FAIL (Phase 3): exit 1; package assembly halts. Numbers that do not reproduce do not get deposited.
Restricted data detected but no access note generated: exit 1 with the confidential-data blocker — packaging cannot proceed until Phase 5 runs.

Cross-references

.claude/rules/replication-protocol.md — tolerance contract + passport schema (the upstream verification this skill packages).
.claude/skills/audit-reproducibility/SKILL.md — the Phase 3 gate; proves claims reproduce.
.claude/rules/confidential-data.md — restricted-data deposit rules driving Phase 5.
templates/passport-template.yaml — source of the Table/Figure → program:line map when present.
.claude/skills/data-analysis/SKILL.md · .claude/skills/stata-replication/SKILL.md — the R / Stata pipelines whose outputs this skill packages.
.claude/skills/simulation-study/SKILL.md — seeded Monte Carlo outputs are packaged the same way (seeds + per-rep raw results belong in output/).
.claude/skills/preregister/SKILL.md — for RCTs, the PAP belongs in the deposit alongside the analysis.

What this skill does NOT do

Verify the numbers. That is /audit-reproducibility (called in Phase 3). This skill packages a verified result; it blocks rather than re-derives on FAIL.
Upload to the repository. It builds the local tree and README; the author performs the openICPSR / Zenodo / Dataverse upload and gets the DOI. Web deposit is deliberately out of scope.
Judge the research. Whether the identification strategy (DiD / event-study, IV, RCT, panel FE) is sound is a /review-paper question. A reproducible package can still house a flawed design.
De-identify your data. It flags restricted inputs and refuses to deposit them; it does not run disclosure-avoidance algorithms on raw microdata — that is the author's (and the RDC's) responsibility.