response-letter
Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.
63
75%
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/response-letter/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
100%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 is a strong description that clearly communicates a specific workflow (organizing reviewer comments into a standardized response letter with location mapping), uses natural trigger terms that users in academic or review contexts would employ, and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger scenarios. It is well-scoped and distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with general document or writing skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple concrete actions: 'organize reviewer comments', 'generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter', and 'maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line)'. These are specific, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (organize comments, generate standardized Word response letter with location mapping) and 'when' ('Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'reviewer comments', 'manuscript', 'peer-review feedback', 'review responses', 'response letter', '.docx', and 'Word'. These cover the natural language variations well for this domain. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche combining peer review, response letters, and location-mapped changes in Word format. Unlikely to conflict with generic document or writing skills due to the specific academic/review workflow focus. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a well-structured conceptual framework for generating peer-review response letters, with clear workflow steps and output format specifications. However, it falls short on actionability by lacking any executable code for .docx generation, and on workflow clarity by omitting validation checkpoints. The content also suffers from redundancy between the Key Features and Implementation Details sections.
Suggestions
Add executable code examples for .docx generation (e.g., using python-docx) showing how to create the response letter structure programmatically, including heading styles, blockquotes, and checklist formatting.
Add explicit validation steps: verify all reviewer comments have corresponding responses (count check), validate .docx output opens correctly, and confirm the modification checklist covers every change mentioned in responses.
Consolidate the Key Features and Implementation Details sections to eliminate redundancy—move the detailed rules into Implementation Details only and keep Key Features as a brief summary or remove it entirely.
Provide or verify the referenced `references/guide.md` file exists in the bundle, or inline the critical formatting rules if the reference is unavailable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably organized but includes some redundancy—Key Features and Implementation Details largely restate the same information (e.g., per-comment layout, location marking, major/minor classification). The 'When to Use' section is somewhat verbose with overlapping bullet points. Could be tightened by ~30%. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear step-by-step workflow and output structure, but lacks any executable code for generating the .docx file. There are no concrete code snippets (e.g., python-docx usage), no specific commands, and the example is descriptive text rather than executable guidance. For a skill that requires Word document generation, the absence of actual implementation code is a significant gap. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced and logical, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops. There's no step to verify the .docx output is well-formed, no check that all comments have been addressed, and no error recovery guidance. The modification/execution checklist is mentioned as an output but not as an in-process validation step. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `references/guide.md` for formatting details, which is appropriate progressive disclosure. However, no bundle files are provided, so we can't verify the reference exists. The content itself has some redundancy between Key Features and Implementation Details that could be better organized—either consolidated or split into a reference file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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.