Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsCommunityBlog
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Psychbull Rebuttal

ASecurity

Use when writing the response to a Psychological Bulletin revise-and-resubmit. A synthesis R&R often demands re-running the search, adding studies, or new bias/moderator analyses, so the response must satisfy every reviewer and the editor while keeping the meta-analysis internally consistent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate results.

1,052 stars
0 votes
0 copies
1 views
Added 6/6/2026
ai-agentsapidatabase

Works with

api

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 6/6/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psychbull-rebuttal --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Psychbull Rebuttal?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Psychbull Rebuttal
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-psychbull-rebuttal/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-psychbull-rebuttal)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: psychbull-rebuttal
description: Use when writing the response to a Psychological Bulletin revise-and-resubmit. A synthesis R&R often demands re-running the search, adding studies, or new bias/moderator analyses, so the response must satisfy every reviewer and the editor while keeping the meta-analysis internally consistent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate results.
---

# R&R Rebuttal (psychbull-rebuttal)

A Psychological Bulletin **R&R** on a synthesis is distinctive: reviewer requests often touch the
**search, eligibility, coding, model, or bias analyses** — any of which can ripple through every
downstream estimate, table, and figure. The response letter must convert each reviewer and keep the
editor confident **without breaking the synthesis's internal consistency** or its deposited package.

## When to trigger

- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- A reviewer wants the search expanded, studies added, or eligibility changed
- A reviewer requests a different model, more moderators, or more bias diagnostics
- Reviewers disagree and you must reconcile their demands

## Strategy

1. **Read the editor's letter as the rubric.** The editor flags the decisive points; solve those first.
2. **One point-by-point response, every comment addressed.** Quote each comment, then respond; never
   skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. **Propagate changes consistently.** If you **expand the search or change eligibility**, you must
   re-run **everything downstream** — pooled effect, heterogeneity, moderators, bias diagnostics,
   PRISMA counts, every table and figure — and keep them mutually consistent. State the new k.
4. **Concede or rebut with evidence.** Did what was asked (say where, with new numbers/exhibit numbers),
   or push back respectfully on methodological grounds (e.g., why an unplanned moderator stays
   exploratory, why a bias test is uninformative under high heterogeneity).
5. **Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly.** When one wants broader inclusion and another stricter,
   choose a principled rule, apply it, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
6. **Protect the contribution.** Add robustness and clarification; resist changes that dilute the
   synthesis or over-claim beyond the evidence and heterogeneity.
7. **Keep it masked and update the package.** The revised manuscript stays masked; **update the
   deposited database, codebook, and scripts** so new estimates remain reproducible.

## Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

```
> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page; new k; table/figure number; updated estimate].
```

Open with a short **summary of the main changes** to the editor (especially any change in study count
or model); group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of every change for quick verification.

## Anti-patterns

- Adding studies but leaving stale estimates/figures from the old pool (inconsistent synthesis)
- Ignoring or silently merging a comment
- Capitulating to a request that breaks eligibility logic just to please a reviewer
- Reporting a new bias test without acknowledging it changes the bottom line
- Letting the revised manuscript drift out of sync with the deposited package
- Reintroducing author clues while editing (breaks masking)

## Output format

```
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Re-run propagated】new k; all estimates/exhibits consistent? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained? [Y/N]
【Masked + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — re-running the search/analysis; keeping the package in sync
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — masked review and transparency policy behind the response

Attribution

brycewang-stanfordbrycewang-stanford
View sourceMore from brycewang-stanford →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Related Skills

Caveman

Ultra-compressed communication mode that cuts output tokens while keeping technical accuracy. Levels: lite, full, ultra and the wenyan variants. Use for /caveman, "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "be brief" or "less tokens".

1066601 votes

Hyperplan

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', ...

693161 votes

Mcp Code Execution

Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.

3351 votes

catchup

Recovers the conversation and failed tool calls of a previous Codex, Claude Code, Antigravity, Cline, Copilot CLI, Cursor, DeepSeek Harness, Kimi, OpenCode, Pi Agent, or ZCode session. Use when the user says "catch up", "what did the last session do", "get me up to speed", "I switched agents", asks to recover/summarize a previous session before continuing, or asks to diagnose or report a catchup failure. Do NOT use for the current conversation, git history, or any non-agent log.

651 votes

math-skill

A comprehensive mathematical reasoning skill for AI assistants — handles arithmetic to research-level problems with rigorous step-by-step reasoning, systematic verification, and transparent uncertainty handling

381 votes
View all in ai-agents →