peer-review-response-drafter

Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger.

Quality

28%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review-response-drafter/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

22%

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

This description is severely underdeveloped with vague capability statements and what appears to be placeholder text ('Trigger.'). It fails to provide concrete actions, explicit usage triggers, or comprehensive keyword coverage that would help Claude select this skill appropriately from a large skill library.

Suggestions

Add a complete 'Use when...' clause with specific triggers like 'reviewer comments', 'manuscript revision', 'rebuttal letter', 'journal submission', or 'revision response'

Replace vague 'Assist in drafting' with specific actions such as 'Structures point-by-point responses to reviewer comments, formats revision letters, drafts rebuttals, and tracks changes made to manuscripts'

Remove the incomplete 'Trigger.' placeholder and replace with natural language triggers users would actually say when needing this skill

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague language ('Assist in drafting') without listing concrete actions. It doesn't specify what drafting entails - no mention of addressing reviewer comments, structuring responses, formatting, or any specific capabilities.	1 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is extremely weak (just 'drafting professional peer review response letters') and there is no 'when' clause. 'Trigger.' appears to be incomplete or placeholder text, not actual trigger guidance.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant keywords ('peer review', 'response letters') that users might naturally say, but 'Trigger.' appears to be a placeholder or error. Missing common variations like 'reviewer comments', 'revision letter', 'rebuttal', or 'manuscript revision'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The domain of 'peer review response letters' is somewhat specific to academic/scientific publishing, which provides some distinctiveness. However, it could overlap with general writing or document drafting skills due to lack of specific triggers.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Implementation

35%

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

This skill suffers from severe template bloat—generic sections like Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, and repeated boilerplate add significant length without teaching Claude anything useful about drafting peer review responses. The core domain knowledge (how to actually craft diplomatic responses to reviewer criticism) is minimal compared to the operational scaffolding. The useful content (Quality Checklist, Parameters, Usage Example) is buried.

Suggestions

Remove or drastically reduce boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) that don't add peer-review-specific value

Add concrete examples of input reviewer comments paired with well-crafted response outputs demonstrating diplomatic tone and proper formatting

Consolidate the multiple redundant workflow sections into a single clear sequence

Replace generic 'When to Use' triggers with specific academic scenarios (e.g., 'major revision response', 'rejection appeal', 'minor revision acknowledgment')

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with significant redundancy. Multiple sections repeat the same information (e.g., 'scripts/main.py' mentioned 7+ times), boilerplate sections like 'Risk Assessment', 'Security Checklist', 'Lifecycle Status' add little value for this task, and generic template language ('Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger.') appears verbatim multiple times.	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides some concrete guidance with CLI parameters and a usage example, but the actual response drafting logic is abstract. The 'scripts/main.py' is referenced but no actual implementation details or executable examples of how to draft responses are shown—just how to run a script that presumably does the work.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multiple workflow sections exist but are generic and repetitive. The Quality Checklist provides useful validation steps, but the main workflow is vague ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate that the request matches'). No clear feedback loop for iterating on response quality with the user.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References to external files (references/response_templates.md, references/tone_guide.md) are present and clearly signaled, but the main document is bloated with boilerplate sections that should either be removed or consolidated. The structure exists but is buried under excessive template content.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

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

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Commit: 4a48721

Reviewed: about 12 hours 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.