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.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

66%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 delivers a clear, well-checkpointed workflow for an instruction-only skill, but is weakened by generic template boilerplate and an underspecified DOCX generation mechanism. Trimming the boilerplate and giving concrete guidance for producing the .docx from the bundled template would meaningfully improve it.

Suggestions

Remove or tailor the generic boilerplate sections (Required Inputs, Output Contract, Failure Handling, Input Validation, Quick Validation) so their content is specific to response-letter generation rather than copy-pasted template text.

Add concrete, executable guidance for producing the .docx deliverable — e.g., how to use assets/review_response_template.docx (copy-and-fill vs. style reuse) or a python-docx snippet — so the core output step is unambiguous.

De-duplicate the three-block layout description (currently repeated in Key Features, Example Usage, and Implementation Details) and move the canonical format detail into references/guide.md, referencing it once from the body.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill-specific sections are reasonably tight, but substantial generic boilerplate (Required Inputs table with PMID/PDF/CSV examples, Output Contract, Failure Handling, Input Validation, Quick Validation) is template padding, and the three-block layout is restated across Key Features, Example Usage, and Implementation Details.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete guidance exists for numbering (R{reviewer}-{index}), the fixed layout, location marking, and added/deleted/rewritten indicators, but the core DOCX generation mechanism is underspecified — a bundled template.docx is named with no instruction on how to populate it and no script or library direction.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-step sequence is paired with four explicit user checkpoints, a modification/execution checklist, and a quick-validation section, providing explicit validation steps and feedback loops for a document-generation task.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle is well-structured with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (references/guide.md and assets/review_response_template.docx, both verified present), but format details are duplicated between the body and guide.md rather than cleanly split.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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.

A strong description that clearly states capabilities and explicit usage triggers for a well-defined niche. It could be improved by adding a few common synonyms (e.g., 'rebuttal letter') and mentioning more of the concrete sub-actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions ('organize reviewer comments', 'generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter', 'maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line)') but omits specifics like numbering, major/minor split, and the editor overview, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what it does and when to use it, with concrete trigger phrases in the 'Use when...' clause.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural-term coverage ('revising a manuscript', 'replying to peer-review feedback', 'preparing internal review responses', 'response letter', 'Word (.docx)'), but misses common synonyms such as 'rebuttal letter' and 'resubmission'.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (peer-review response letters for manuscripts) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

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

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

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

Reviewed: 7 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.