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.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

78%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-structured instruction-only skill: a clear sequenced workflow with explicit QA, concrete ID/tracker conventions, and excellent progressive disclosure via a well-signaled reference table. Its main weaknesses are mild duplication between the stance and red-lines sections and the absence of a worked response example or an explicit QA feedback loop.

Suggestions

Merge the overlapping invention-prohibition lists in 'Default stance' and 'Red lines' into a single section to remove duplicated content and tighten the body (conciseness).

Add one short worked example of a single comment-response pair (preserved reviewer comment + evidence-linked reply + tracker row) to make the expected output concrete (actionability).

State a QA feedback loop explicitly, e.g. 'If QA fails, fix the flagged items and re-run the checklist before returning the package' (workflow_clarity).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes competence (no explanation of what peer review is), but "Default stance" and "Red lines" duplicate the same prohibitions ("Do not invent experiments... line numbers, figure panels" vs "Do not invent line numbers, figure panels, citations"), which is trimmable. Fits anchor 4 (efficient, minor over-explanation) rather than 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable guidance throughout: task-mode names ("draft, audit, revise, triage-only, appeal-like"), ID schemes ("E.1", "R1.1", "R1.2"), readiness states, and a full output-format template with a tracker table. Falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no worked example of a single comment-response pair.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 10-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints (step 8 "Flag missing author input rather than fabricating details", step 9 QA for "completeness, traceability, factuality, tone, and unresolved risk", plus the qa-checklist reference). Below anchor 5 because no validate-then-fix-and-retry feedback loop is stated for audit-mode failures.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview and the "Related files" table points to nine one-level-deep references (all verified to exist), each with a clear "Open when" signal, matching the anchor-5 example of well-signaled one-level-deep references.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

95%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 description: concrete capabilities, an explicit 'Use when' clause with rich natural trigger terms in both English and Chinese, and a well-defined niche. The only gap is that the description omits the appeal/triage task modes the skill body supports.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions" names the domain plus three concrete lifecycle actions. Fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5 because appeal-like and triage-only modes covered in the body are absent from the description.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers what ("Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions") and when ("Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters... or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests"), matching the anchor-5 example pattern exactly.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The trigger list is comprehensive with natural synonyms and bilingual variants: "reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, ... rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐条回复" — matches anchor 5's coverage including synonyms.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche (Nature-family manuscript revision responses) with distinct triggers including Chinese terms; minimal conflict risk with generic writing or paper skills, matching the anchor-5 clear-niche example.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar
Path: skills/nature-response/SKILL.md
Commit: 9037873

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.