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.
79
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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 skill description that clearly defines a specific niche (peer-review response letter generation), lists concrete capabilities (organizing comments, generating .docx, mapping changes to locations), and provides explicit trigger guidance with natural user terms. It follows third-person voice and is concise without unnecessary padding.
| 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 reviewer comments, generate standardized Word response letter with location mapping) and 'when' (revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, preparing internal review responses) with an explicit 'Use when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'reviewer comments', 'manuscript', 'peer-review feedback', 'response letter', 'internal review responses', and '.docx'. These cover the main variations of how users would describe this task. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche combining peer-review/manuscript revision with structured response letter generation in .docx format. Unlikely to conflict with general document or writing skills due to the specific domain of reviewer comment organization and location mapping. | 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.
The skill provides a well-structured conceptual framework for generating peer-review response letters, with clear step sequencing and a consistent per-comment layout. However, it lacks executable code for .docx generation (a core deliverable), has no validation checkpoints, and contains redundancy between the Example Usage and Implementation Details sections. The content reads more like a process specification than an actionable skill Claude can directly execute.
Suggestions
Add executable python-docx code snippets showing how to create the .docx structure (headings, blockquotes, checklist), since .docx generation is the core deliverable.
Add a validation step after generating deliverables (e.g., verify all comment IDs appear in both the response letter and the checklist) to ensure completeness.
Consolidate the 'Example Usage' and 'Implementation Details' sections to eliminate redundancy — the per-comment layout, location marking, and major/minor classification are described twice.
Remove explanations Claude already knows (e.g., definitions of major vs. minor comments, what 'polite and direct' means) to improve token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably organized but includes some unnecessary explanation that Claude would already know (e.g., explaining what major vs. minor comments are, what 'polite, direct' means). The 'When to Use' section is somewhat verbose with overlapping bullet points. Some tightening is possible. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear workflow and structural template but lacks any executable code for generating the .docx file. There are no concrete code snippets (e.g., python-docx usage), no specific formatting commands, and the example is more of a process description than copy-paste-ready guidance. The reference to 'references/guide.md' defers key details without showing them. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (organize → draft overview → write responses → mark locations → generate deliverables), but there are no validation checkpoints. For a document generation task, there's no verification step to confirm all comments are addressed, no check that the .docx output is valid, and no feedback loop for error recovery. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is a reference to 'references/guide.md' for formatting details, which is good progressive disclosure. However, the main file itself contains a mix of overview-level and implementation-level content that could be better separated. The 'Implementation Details' section repeats much of what's in 'Example Usage', creating redundancy rather than clear layering. | 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
5c61b71
- 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.