本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

event-study

Use this skill whenever the user wants to conduct an event study, create event study plots, test for parallel trends, implement difference-in-differences designs, or work with any panel data estimation that involves pre/post treatment comparisons. Trigger on phrases like "event study", "parallel trends", "pre-trends", "dynamic treatment effects", "leads and lags", "TWFE", "two-way fixed effects", "staggered adoption", "staggered treatment", "difference-in-differences", "DiD", "Sun and Abraham", "Callaway and Sant'Anna", "de Chaisemartin", "Borusyak", "did_multiplegt", "fixest", "did2s", "bacon decomposition", or any reference to plotting coefficients around a treatment event. Also trigger when the user uploads panel data and wants to estimate treatment effects with variation in treatment timing. All code is in R.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(4)

  • SKILL.md6.7 KB
  • diagnostics-and-testing.md12.4 KB
  • modern-extensions.md15.3 KB
  • traditional-event-study.md7.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Event Study Skill

This skill covers everything needed to conduct event studies in R - from the traditional two-way fixed effects (TWFE) approach through modern robust estimators that handle staggered treatment timing and heterogeneous treatment effects.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when the user wants to:

  • Create event study plots (coefficient plots around a treatment event)
  • Test for parallel pre-trends in a difference-in-differences design
  • Estimate dynamic treatment effects
  • Work with staggered treatment adoption (units treated at different times)
  • Implement any of the modern DiD estimators (Callaway & Sant'Anna, Sun & Abraham, etc.)
  • Diagnose problems with TWFE under treatment effect heterogeneity

Quick Decision Tree

Before writing any code, determine the user's situation:

  1. Is treatment timing the same for all treated units?

    • Yes → Traditional TWFE event study is fine. See traditional-event-study.md
    • No (staggered) → Go to step 2.
  2. Is there reason to expect heterogeneous treatment effects across cohorts or over time?

    • No strong reason → Traditional TWFE may still be OK, but consider robust alternatives.
    • Yes or unsure → Use a robust estimator. See modern-extensions.md
  3. What is the user's goal?

    • Quick visualization of pre-trends → Traditional approach, fast and familiar.
    • Publication-quality estimation → Recommend a robust estimator + traditional as comparison.
    • Diagnostic check → Bacon decomposition to understand TWFE weights.

Core Concepts (Brief)

An event study plot displays estimated coefficients for leads (pre-treatment periods) and lags (post-treatment periods) relative to a baseline period (typically one period before treatment). The key elements are:

  • Relative time: Time reindexed so that treatment occurs at period 0 for each unit.
  • Baseline/reference period: Usually t = -1 (omitted from regression, normalized to zero).
  • Pre-trend coefficients: Periods before treatment. If these are close to zero, it supports the parallel trends assumption.
  • Post-treatment coefficients: These capture the dynamic treatment effect over time.

The parallel trends assumption states that, absent treatment, treated and control units would have followed the same trajectory. Pre-trend coefficients near zero are necessary (but not sufficient) evidence for this.

Workflow

For any event study request, follow this general workflow:

  1. Understand the data: Identify the panel structure (unit ID, time variable, treatment indicator, outcome). Ask the user if not clear.
  2. Determine treatment timing: Is it uniform or staggered?
  3. Choose the estimator: Use the decision tree above.
  4. Estimate the model: Follow the relevant reference file.
  5. Create the plot: Always produce a clean, publication-ready event study plot.
  6. Interpret results: Discuss pre-trends, post-treatment dynamics, and any concerns.

Reference Files

Read these as needed based on the user's situation:

  • traditional-event-study.md - Traditional TWFE event study with fixest. Read this for any event study request. It covers the baseline approach, plotting, and the assumptions behind it.

  • modern-extensions.md - Modern robust estimators for staggered designs. Read this when treatment timing varies across units or when the user asks about heterogeneous treatment effects, or any of the newer DiD methods.

  • diagnostics-and-testing.md - Pre-trend testing, placebo checks, Bacon decomposition, sensitivity analysis. Read this when the user wants to validate their design or when you spot potential issues.

Key R Packages

PackagePurposeWhen to use
fixestTWFE event studies, Sun & AbrahamDefault starting point
didCallaway & Sant'Anna estimatorStaggered treatment, heterogeneous effects
did2sGardner (2022) two-stage DiDStaggered treatment, clean decomposition
DIDmultiplegtde Chaisemartin & D'HaultfoeuilleStaggered, robust to heterogeneity
bacondecompBacon decompositionDiagnosing TWFE problems
HonestDiDSensitivity analysis for pre-trendsRobustness checks on parallel trends
ggplot2PlottingAlways
modelsummaryRegression tablesWhen user needs tables

Plotting Standards

All event study plots should follow these defaults (user can override):

  • Use ggplot2 with theme_minimal() or a clean custom theme
  • Include a vertical dashed line at t = 0 (treatment onset)
  • Include a horizontal dashed line at y = 0 (null effect)
  • IMPORTANT: Use discrete point estimates with vertical error bars (geom_point + geom_errorbar), NOT connected lines with shaded ribbons (geom_line + geom_ribbon). Each period t should show an individual point with its own error bar. This is the standard format in economics journals.
  • Show 95% confidence intervals as error bars (vertical lines at each point)
  • Label axes clearly: "Periods Relative to Treatment" (x) and the outcome name (y)
  • Normalize the reference period coefficient to 0 explicitly
  • Use colorblind-friendly palettes when comparing multiple groups
  • If comparing estimators, use facets or distinct colors/shapes with a legend

Common Pitfalls to Watch For

  • Forgetting to set the reference period: Always drop one pre-treatment period.
  • Binning endpoint periods: With limited pre/post periods, bin the endpoints (e.g., "-5+" and "5+") to avoid small-sample noise.
  • Not-yet-treated as controls: In staggered settings, TWFE uses not-yet-treated units as controls, which can introduce bias if treatment effects are heterogeneous.
  • Interpreting pre-trends as proof of parallel trends: Pre-trends being zero is necessary but not sufficient. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  • Unbalanced panels: Missing observations can distort event study estimates, especially at the endpoints.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

a1

無料

VS-Enhanced Research Question Refiner - Prevents Mode Collapse and derives differentiated research questions Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Modal question avoidance, alternatives presentation, differentiated RQ recommendation Use when: refining research ideas, formulating research questions, clarifying scope Triggers: research question, 연구 질문, PICO, SPIDER, research idea

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5992026年10月12日 更新

a2

無料

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5992026年10月12日 更新

a5

無料

Agent A5 - Paradigm & Worldview Advisor - Philosophical foundations for research design. Covers ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology alignment. Use when: establishing philosophical foundations, justifying methodological choices, writing positionality statements Triggers: paradigm, 패러다임, ontology, epistemology, worldview, 세계관, philosophical foundations, 철학적 기초

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5992026年10月12日 更新

Academic paper writing skill with 12-agent pipeline. v2.5: Style Calibration (learn author's writing voice from past papers) + Writing Quality Check (writing quality checklist for natural prose). Supports IMRaD, literature review, theoretical, case study, policy brief, and conference paper structures. APA 7.0 (default), Chicago, MLA, IEEE, Vancouver citation formats. Bilingual abstracts (zh-TW + EN). Multi-format output (LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown). Triggers on: write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, guide my paper, parse reviews, revision roadmap, 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 檢查引用, 引導我寫論文, 帶我規劃論文, 逐章規劃, 論文架構, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5992026年10月12日 更新

Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5992026年10月12日 更新

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, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5992026年10月12日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する