Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

did-analysis

Evaluate policy effects with difference-in-differences, a method comparing changes in treated and untreated groups. Guides assumption checks, regression models, staggered adoption analysis, robustness checks, and reporting with event study plots.

OriginalShow the original description

Econometrics skill for Difference-in-Differences (DID) analysis. Activates when the user asks about: "difference in differences", "DID", "DiD", "diff-in-diff", "parallel trends", "treatment group", "control group", "pre-treatment", "post-treatment", "policy evaluation", "natural experiment", "staggered DID", "event study regression", "two-way fixed effects DID", "callaway santanna", "sun and abraham", "双重差分", "倍差法", "平行趋势", "处理组", "对照组", "政策评估", "事件研究", "交错DID", "渐进处理"

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Good for

  • Evaluating policy effects with comparison groups
  • Checking outcome trends before treatment
  • Analyzing policies adopted at different times
  • Preparing figures and methods for a research paper

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md6.6 KB
  • references/did-reference.md7.4 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Difference-in-Differences (DID) Skill

This skill guides complete DID analysis: from assumption validation and model specification to staggered treatment designs and event study regressions. Designed for policy evaluation and natural experiment settings.

Core DID Logic

DID compares the change in outcomes for a treatment group before and after treatment to the change for a control group over the same period.

DID Estimator = (Ȳ_treat,post − Ȳ_treat,pre) − (Ȳ_ctrl,post − Ȳ_ctrl,pre)

Key Assumption (Parallel Trends): In the absence of treatment, the treatment group's outcome would have evolved in parallel with the control group.

DID Workflow

  1. Design check: Confirm treatment/control assignment and timing
  2. Parallel trends: Test with pre-treatment event study regression
  3. Baseline regression: 2×2 DID or TWFE regression
  4. Staggered design check: If adoption dates vary, use robust estimators
  5. Robustness: Placebo treatment, alternative control groups, callaway-santanna

Basic 2×2 DID Model

Y_it = β₀ + β₁·Treat_i + β₂·Post_t + β₃·(Treat_i × Post_t) + ε_it

β₃ = DID estimate (ATT)

Code Templates

# Python — 2×2 DID with TWFE
import statsmodels.formula.api as smf

# Simple 2x2
model = smf.ols('y ~ treat + post + treat_post', data=df).fit(cov_type='HC3')

# TWFE with entity and time FE (preferred)
from linearmodels.panel import PanelOLS
df_panel = df.set_index(['entity_id', 'year'])
twfe = PanelOLS(df_panel['y'], df_panel[['treat_post']],
                entity_effects=True, time_effects=True)
result = twfe.fit(cov_type='clustered', cluster_entity=True)
print(result.summary)
# R — TWFE
library(plm); library(lmtest); library(sandwich)
panel_df <- pdata.frame(df, index = c("entity_id", "year"))
twfe <- plm(y ~ treat_post, data = panel_df, model = "within", effect = "twoways")
coeftest(twfe, vcov = vcovHC(twfe, cluster = "group"))
* Stata — TWFE with clustered SE
xtset entity_id year
xtreg y treat_post i.year, fe cluster(entity_id)
* Or equivalently:
reghdfe y treat_post, absorb(entity_id year) cluster(entity_id)

Parallel Trends: Event Study Regression

Replace the single treat_post dummy with relative-time dummies to visualize pre-trends:

* Stata — event study
reghdfe y ib(-1).rel_time, absorb(entity_id year) cluster(entity_id)
coefplot, vertical yline(0) xline(0) ///
    title("Event Study: Pre/Post Treatment Effects") ///
    xlabel(, angle(45))
# R — event study
library(fixest)
es_model <- feols(y ~ i(rel_time, treat, ref = -1) | entity_id + year,
                  data = df, cluster = ~entity_id)
iplot(es_model, xlab = "Periods relative to treatment")

Interpreting the event study plot:

  • Pre-treatment coefficients ≈ 0 → parallel trends assumption holds
  • Pre-trend test: joint F-test for all pre-treatment coefficients = 0
  • Post-treatment coefficients show dynamic treatment effects

Staggered DID

When units adopt treatment at different times, standard TWFE can be biased (Callaway-Sant'Anna, Sun-Abraham).

# R — Callaway-Sant'Anna estimator (csdid)
library(did)
cs_result <- att_gt(yname = "y",
                    gname = "cohort_year",   # year of first treatment (0 if never treated)
                    idname = "entity_id",
                    tname  = "year",
                    xformla = ~x1 + x2,
                    data = df)

# Aggregate to average ATT
aggte(cs_result, type = "simple")   # Overall ATT
aggte(cs_result, type = "dynamic")  # Dynamic effects
ggdid(cs_result)
# R — Sun-Abraham (fixest)
library(fixest)
sa_model <- feols(y ~ sunab(cohort_year, year) | entity_id + year,
                  data = df, cluster = ~entity_id)
iplot(sa_model)
* Stata — Callaway-Sant'Anna (csdid from SSC)
csdid y x1 x2, ivar(entity_id) time(year) gvar(cohort_year)
csdid_plot

Robustness Checks for DID

  1. Placebo treatment dates: assign fake treatment 1–2 periods before actual treatment
  2. Placebo treatment groups: run DID using only control units with a fake treatment
  3. Alternative control groups: restrict to more comparable controls
  4. Continuous treatment intensity: use dose-response DID

Reporting Standards

  • Report event study plot as Figure (essential for credibility)
  • State the parallel trends assumption and supporting evidence
  • Report DID coefficient with clustered SE (cluster at entity level)
  • Discuss potential violations: anticipation effects, Ashenfelter's dip, spillovers
  • For staggered designs, always use CS or SA estimators and explain why

See references/did-reference.md for heterogeneous treatment effects, triple-difference models, synthetic control comparison, Borusyak-Jaravel-Spiess imputation estimator, de Chaisemartin-D'Haultfoeuille estimator, and Roth (2022) pre-trends power analysis.

Common Pitfalls

  • Using TWFE with staggered treatment and heterogeneous effects: Standard TWFE is biased — use Callaway-Sant'Anna, Sun-Abraham, or Borusyak-Jaravel-Spiess
  • Clustering at the treatment level: Don't cluster at the individual level if treatment varies at the state level — cluster at the state level
  • Failing to reject pre-trends ≠ parallel trends hold: Low power is common; use Roth (2022) power analysis to assess
  • Ignoring anticipation effects: If agents anticipate treatment, pre-treatment coefficients may be non-zero even with parallel trends
  • Not showing the event study plot: Reviewers expect to see pre-trends visually — always include the event study figure

Related Skills & Commands

  • synthetic-control: When you have few treated units, SCM may be more appropriate
  • rdd-analysis: If treatment is assigned by a threshold rule, use RDD instead
  • ml-causal: Causal forests can identify heterogeneous treatment effects within DID
  • /diagnose: Run DID-specific diagnostics (pre-trends, Bacon decomposition)
  • /robustness: Placebo tests, alternative estimators, wild cluster bootstrap
  • /method: Generate the methodology section for your DID paper

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

a1

FreeSummary

Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.

  • Turn a research topic into testable questions
  • Narrow an overly broad research question
  • Compare alternative research angles
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.8KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

a2

FreeSummary

Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.

  • Comparing theories for a research question
  • Deriving hypotheses from relationships between variables
  • Examining weaknesses and anticipated reviewer objections
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.8KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

a5

FreeSummary

Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.

  • Clarifying philosophical foundations for a research proposal
  • Explaining why the chosen research methods fit the study
  • Drafting a statement about the researcher's position
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.8KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

academic-paper

FreeSummary

Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.

  • Planning a paper chapter by chapter
  • Drafting a paper from research materials
  • Turning reviewer comments into a revision roadmap
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.8KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.

  • Draft a full paper from a detailed outline
  • Review argument and citation quality chapter by chapter
  • Check terminology and argument flow across chapters
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.8KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.

  • Review a manuscript before journal submission
  • Examine research methods and statistical validity
  • Challenge core arguments and alternative explanations
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.8KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill