Use rebuttal letter strategist for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.
51
56%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/rebuttal-letter-strategist/SKILL.md"Soft but firm" rebuttal response generation.
Use this command to verify that the packaged script entry point can be parsed before deeper execution.
python -m py_compile scripts/main.pyUse these concrete commands for validation. They are intentionally self-contained and avoid placeholder paths.
python -m py_compile scripts/main.py
python scripts/main.py --help| Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
criticism | str | Yes | - | Reviewer comment text to respond to |
response_type | str | No | "Partial" | Response type: "Accept", "Partial", or "Reject" |
evidence | str | No | - | Supporting data for the response |
Transforms "We disagree" → "We respectfully maintain..."
| Risk Indicator | Assessment | Level |
|---|---|---|
| Code Execution | Python/R scripts executed locally | Medium |
| Network Access | No external API calls | Low |
| File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium |
| Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low |
| Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low |
No additional Python packages required.
Every final response should make these items explicit when they are relevant:
scripts/main.py fails, report the failure point, summarize what still can be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback.This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of rebuttal-letter-strategist and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.
Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:
rebuttal-letter-strategistonly handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.
Use the following fixed structure for non-trivial requests:
If the request is simple, you may compress the structure, but still keep assumptions and limits explicit when they affect correctness.
| Field | Required | Format/Source | Example | If Missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User task description | Yes | Text | Research question, writing goal, analysis objective | Stop and ask user to provide |
| Primary input material | Depends on task | Text, file path, ID, table, or literature | PMID, PDF, CSV, DOCX, keywords, etc. | Specify which material type is missing |
| Output preference | No | Text | Language, format, target journal, template | Use skill default format |
7cc5680
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.