peer-review-response-drafter

Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger.

Quality

50%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review-response-drafter/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

46%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 has a workable structure with real bundle files and a concrete parameter/command surface, but it is padded with repetitive generic boilerplate and a broken reference. Actionability and workflow clarity are mid-range because the actual drafting logic is delegated rather than demonstrated and validation is not explicitly chained.

Suggestions

Collapse the repeated scope/assumptions/fallback material from Workflow, Output Requirements, Error Handling, Input Validation, and Response Template into one concise section to cut padding.

Fix or remove the non-existent references/examples/ reference, and move generic Risk/Security/Evaluation/Lifecycle boilerplate into a separate reference file.

Replace the mismatched medical audit sample with a real peer-review input example, and wire the Quality Checklist in as an explicit validation checkpoint in the Workflow.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~255-line body repeats the same scope/assumptions/fallback message across Workflow, Output Requirements, Error Handling, Input Validation, and Response Template, and inlines generic guidance Claude already knows ("confirm the user objective...", "keep results reproducible"); this is noticeably verbose with several padded sections, matching anchor 2 rather than the occasional-trimming of 3.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable commands ("python -m py_compile scripts/main.py", "python scripts/main.py --help"), a real Parameters table, and a Usage Example, but the core drafting technique is delegated to scripts/references rather than shown, and the audit input sample references medical "symptoms, history, assessment" mismatched to a peer-review skill — anchor 3 with missing key details, not the mostly-complete 4.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A 5-step Workflow and 4-step run plan give a clear sequence with a stop-early guard and fallback path, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint wiring the Quality Checklist into the flow; checkpoints are only implicit, matching anchor 3 rather than the explicit-checkpoint 4.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle paths mostly resolve and are clearly signaled (references/response_templates.md, references/tone_guide.md, scripts/main.py), with one-level-deep structure; the referenced references/examples/ directory does not exist and the body inlines several sections that could be split, which are minor organization gaps fitting anchor 4 rather than a clean 5.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 identifies a clear, distinct niche and one concrete action, but reads as a draft: it lacks a "Use when" trigger clause and carries a stray "Trigger." artifact. Most dimensions land at the midpoint because the what is clear while the when is absent.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when ...' clause naming natural triggers, e.g. 'Use when responding to peer reviewer comments, writing a rebuttal letter, or replying to journal reviewers.'

Remove the trailing 'Trigger.' placeholder artifact from the description.

Broaden action coverage beyond 'drafting' to concrete actions like 'parse reviewer comments, draft point-by-point responses, and format a response letter.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and one concrete action ("drafting professional peer review response letters") but offers no broader action list, matching anchor 3; it is not a 4 because only a single action is named rather than several specific ones.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear "what" ("drafting professional peer review response letters") but no "when"/"Use when" clause — "Trigger." is not trigger guidance — so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes the natural phrase "peer review response letters" but misses common synonyms (rebuttal, response to reviewers, reviewer comments), and the trailing "Trigger." is a placeholder artifact rather than a real term; anchor 3 fits, not 4 due to the missing variations.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Peer-review-response drafting is a clear niche distinct from most skills, but the weak trigger phrasing leaves minor overlap risk with general academic-writing skills, matching anchor 4 rather than a clean-niche 5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review-response-drafter/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 10 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.