rebuttal-letter-strategist
Use rebuttal letter strategist for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.
26
17%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/rebuttal-letter-strategist/SKILL.mdQuality
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.
The description fails to communicate what the skill concretely does, relying on abstract buzzwords instead of specific actions. While 'rebuttal letter' and 'academic writing' provide some domain anchoring, the lack of concrete capabilities and meaningful trigger guidance makes it difficult for Claude to reliably select this skill. The description needs a complete rewrite focusing on specific actions and explicit trigger conditions.
Suggestions
Replace abstract language with concrete actions, e.g., 'Drafts point-by-point rebuttal letters responding to peer reviewer comments, organizes counterarguments, and formats revision response documents.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'reviewer comments', 'peer review response', 'revision letter', 'manuscript resubmission', 'point-by-point response'.
Remove buzzword phrases like 'structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', and 'clear output boundaries' that add no discriminative value for skill selection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language like 'structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', and 'clear output boundaries' without listing any concrete actions. It does not specify what the skill actually does (e.g., draft rebuttals, respond to reviewer comments, organize counterarguments). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is extremely vague—it doesn't explain what the skill concretely does beyond buzzwords. The 'when' clause ('for academic writing workflows that need structured execution...') is present but so abstract it provides no actionable trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | 'Rebuttal letter' and 'academic writing' are relevant natural keywords a user might use, but the description lacks common variations like 'reviewer response', 'peer review', 'revision letter', 'point-by-point response', or 'manuscript revision'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Rebuttal letter' provides some niche specificity that distinguishes it from generic writing skills, but the vague qualifiers ('structured execution', 'explicit assumptions') could overlap with any academic writing or planning skill. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
12%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is heavily padded with generic boilerplate (risk assessment, security checklist, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria) that provides no domain-specific value for rebuttal letter writing. The actual actionable content—how to craft a 'soft but firm' rebuttal, what makes a good point-by-point response, tone guidelines, structural patterns—is almost entirely absent. The skill reads like a template that was filled in with placeholder content rather than genuine expertise about academic rebuttal letters.
Suggestions
Replace boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) with concrete rebuttal-writing guidance: tone rules, structural patterns for Accept/Partial/Reject responses, and at least one complete input→output example showing a reviewer comment transformed into a full rebuttal paragraph.
Add 2-3 complete, realistic examples showing different response_type scenarios (Accept, Partial, Reject) with actual reviewer criticism text and the expected professionally-toned output.
Eliminate redundant repetition: the skill description appears 3 times, 'scripts/main.py' appears 7+ times, and multiple sections cross-reference each other without adding information. Consolidate into a single workflow section.
Remove circular cross-references ('See ## Prerequisites above') and either inline the referenced content or ensure the referenced sections contain substantive, non-redundant information.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. Multiple sections restate the same information (e.g., 'scripts/main.py' is mentioned 7+ times, the skill description is repeated verbatim in 'When to Use' and 'Key Features'). Sections like 'Security Checklist', 'Lifecycle Status', 'Evaluation Criteria', and 'Risk Assessment' are boilerplate that add no actionable value for Claude. Cross-references to non-existent sections ('See ## Prerequisites above') add confusion. The actual domain-specific content (rebuttal letter writing) is buried under generic scaffolding. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Despite the length, there is almost no concrete, executable guidance on how to actually write a rebuttal letter. The 'Example' section is a single trivial transformation ('We disagree' → 'We respectfully maintain...'). The Parameters table lists inputs but there's no example of a complete input/output pair. The workflow steps are generic process management instructions, not specific rebuttal-writing guidance. The bash commands only verify script compilation, not actual usage with real arguments. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a numbered workflow with steps and a run plan, and the error handling section provides fallback guidance. However, the workflow steps are generic and abstract ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate that the request matches the documented scope') rather than specific to rebuttal letter creation. There are no concrete validation checkpoints for the actual output quality (e.g., checking tone, completeness of point-by-point responses). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic wall of text with many sections that repeat each other. References point to 'references/audit-reference.md' but no bundle files are provided, making it impossible to verify. Multiple sections cross-reference each other circularly ('See ## Prerequisites above for related details' / 'See ## Workflow above for related details'). The content that is inline is mostly boilerplate rather than appropriately split domain-specific guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
73f6514
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.