CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

nature-response

Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 reviewer.

71

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-organized instruction skill: lean body, clear sequenced workflow with a QA checkpoint, and exemplary progressive disclosure via a one-level reference table. The main gap is the absence of a worked response-letter example and an explicit retry loop.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example of a single point-by-point response (preserved comment + evidence-linked reply) to lift actionability from guidance to copy-paste-ready.

Make the validate-fix-retry loop explicit in the workflow (e.g., on QA failure, return to draft and re-run QA until ready) to satisfy the feedback-loop expectation for audit/revise modes.

Clarify in the output template how the tracker table's 'Missing author input' column maps to the readiness states, so the link between flags and final readiness is unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean, well-structured body that assumes Claude's competence; it avoids explaining what peer review or rebuttal letters are and every section earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance (ID schemes E.1/R1.1, an output template with a tracker table, readiness states) but the response-letter prose itself is left as an inline placeholder rather than a worked example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 10-step sequenced workflow with an explicit QA checkpoint (step 9) and readiness output states, but lacks an explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop for the audit/revise paths.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a concise overview with a well-signaled, one-level-deep 'Related files' table linking nine real reference files, each with a clear 'Open when' trigger; no nested references.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

90%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, complete description with explicit what-and-when structure and rich bilingual trigger terms. Minor specificity gaps keep it just below fully comprehensive action coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters') but stops short of enumerating the full action set or output artifacts, leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly states both what it does (draft/audit/revise point-by-point response letters) and when to use it via a clear 'Use when the user provides...' clause with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger coverage including English phrases ('rebuttal letters', 'response to reviewers', 'peer-review reports') and Chinese synonyms ('审稿意见回复', '逐点回复', '修回信', '大修回复', '小修回复').

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear narrow niche (Nature-family manuscript revision response letters) with distinct triggers including bilingual terms, giving minimal conflict risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.