L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Développement · SKILL.md

rt-response-to-referees

rt-response-to-referees

Use after an R&R (or the simulated rehearsal) to turn a referee report into a point-by-point response letter plus a revision plan — editor first, every comment answered, each empirical fix backed by a real re-run via the target pack's skill and the execution bridge. Defers the venue's response format to the pack + source-map.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: rt-response-to-referees description: Use after an R&R (or the simulated rehearsal) to turn a referee report into a point-by-point response letter plus a revision plan — editor first, every comment answered, each empirical fix backed by a real re-run via the target pack's skill and the execution bridge. Defers the venue's response format to the pack + source-map.

Response-to-Referees (rt-response-to-referees)

Draft the reply that decides the second round. Full method: shared-resources/submission-readiness/response-to-referees.md.

When to trigger

  • An R&R letter has arrived and needs a point-by-point response + revision.
  • You want to convert rt-simulated-referee output into a rehearsed reply.

What it does

  1. Inventory every comment (per referee + AE), tag major/minor, substantive/clarification.
  2. Editor first — lead with the AE's decisive concerns.
  3. Classify each response honestly: concede & fix / address partially / push back with evidence (rarely, and only when right).
  4. Back substantive fixes with a real re-run — map each empirical comment to the pack skill + rt-execution-bridge; the number in the reply must be one you actually computed.
  5. Write the letter — quote each comment, respond beneath it, point to the exact change.
  6. Summarize the changes in a scannable table.

Hard rules

  1. Editor first, then referees.
  2. Every claimed fix corresponds to a real change/re-run; empirical claims cite a number produced via the execution bridge.
  3. Answer every comment — none silently dropped.
  4. Venue response format from the pack + source-map (some cap length / want a structure).
  5. It drafts a reply; the author owns final scientific sign-off.

Output format

【Cover note to editor】how the decisive concerns were addressed
【Referee 1】R1.1 (quote) → concede&fix / partial / push-back · what changed · where · new number
【Referee 2】… 【AE】(decisive points first)
【Summary of changes】comment → change → location
【Open/declined】comments not fully addressed, with the honest reason

Anti-patterns

  • Silent omission; defensive tone / blanket push-back; "we addressed this" with no real edit; burying the AE's load-bearing concern.

Next: regenerate affected outputs in rt-replication-package so the package matches the revision.

Skills enregistrées