Computational reproducibility is central to scientific credibility, yet verifying published results at scale remains costly. We develop an AI-assisted workflow for automated full-paper replication -- retrieving materials, reconstructing environments, executing code, and matching outputs to point estimates reported in regression tables. We define a universe of all empirical and quantitative papers from the three top political science journals (2010--2025) and measure stated data availability using automated extraction. For a stratified sample of 384 studies, we apply the workflow to conduct full-paper replication, totaling 3,523 empirical models. We find that journal verification requirements, combined with data archiving mandates, drive reproducibility: the share of fully or largely reproducible papers rises from 20.8% before DA-RT adoption to 82.5% after, and conditional on accessible replication packages, 92.1% of papers are fully or largely reproducible (234/254). As a secondary application, we apply standardized IV diagnostics to 84 studies (597 IV specifications among 1,910 replicated models), illustrating how automated execution enables systematic reanalysis across heterogeneous empirical settings.