review-response

Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.

Quality

74%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/review-response/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%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.

The body is a well-organized overview that routes detail to one-level-deep references and includes a genuinely actionable evidence-anchor rule. It loses points for some duplicated/teaching prose and for lacking an explicit draft->validate->revise feedback loop in the main workflow.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated trigger list in 'When to Use' (it repeats the frontmatter description) and trim the 'Success Factors' prose to the strategy bullets to reduce token cost.

Add an explicit validation/retry step to the main workflow (e.g., draft response -> check evidence anchor per row -> fix unresolved rows -> finalize) so workflow_clarity reaches the validate-fix-retry anchor.

List references/successful-cases.md in the 'Reference Documents' section since it is part of the bundle but currently not surfaced.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient, but the 'Core Features' list restates the workflow, the 'When to Use' section duplicates the description's triggers, and the 'Success Factors' section is explanatory prose that partly teaches concepts Claude already knows (e.g., general rebuttal best practices), so it lands at the 'mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation' anchor.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete guidance (comment taxonomy, four strategy types, an explicit evidence-anchor rule with enumerated allowed evidence types, and a default read order), but actual response templates and code live only in the referenced files rather than inline, leaving minor gaps in executable copy-paste material.	3.5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear high-level sequence is present (the workflow line plus numbered 'Usage Steps' and a tone-check step) and the evidence-anchor rule acts as a partial checkpoint, but there is no explicit validate->fix->retry loop for the draft/response cycle, placing it between the 3 and 4 anchors.	3.5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The SKILL.md is an overview that points to four real one-level-deep reference files via a clearly signaled 'Reference Documents' section, plus a well-scoped memory-integration read order; minor gap: the existing references/successful-cases.md is not surfaced in the Reference Documents list.	4.5 / 5
	Total	14.5 / 20 Passed

Description

86%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.

The description is well-constructed: it states the workflow clearly and provides multiple concrete natural-language triggers, answering both 'what' and 'when'. Its only weakness is that the 'what' enumerates just two actions rather than the full capability set (classify, strategize, write, tone-check).

Suggestions

Expand the 'what' to list the key concrete actions (e.g., parse/classify comments, develop per-comment strategy, draft structured rebuttal, tone-check) so capability coverage reads as comprehensive rather than two-action.

Consider adding 'paper review' or 'reviewer comments' as an additional natural synonym to widen trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and a couple of concrete actions ("comment analysis", "professional rebuttal writing") but does not enumerate the broader set of actions (classify, strategize, tone-check) that the skill performs, so it sits between the 3 and 4 anchors.	3.5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ("Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing") and when ("Use when the user asks to...") with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes multiple natural phrases users would actually say ("write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", "analyze review comments"), giving near-comprehensive coverage of natural synonyms; just short of fully exhaustive.	4.5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (academic review/rebuttal) with distinct trigger phrases unlikely to fire for unrelated skills; minimal conflict risk, just slightly less than perfectly self-contained.	4.5 / 5
	Total	17.5 / 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/review-response/SKILL.md
Commit: 6ed46da

Reviewed: 8 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.