R&R cycle — classify referee comments and route to appropriate agents. Replaces /respond-to-referee.
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill revise --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Revise?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-revise)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: revise
description: R&R cycle — classify referee comments and route to appropriate agents. Replaces /respond-to-referee.
argument-hint: "[referee-report file path] [paper path (optional)]"
allowed-tools: Read,Grep,Glob,Write,Edit,Task
---
# Revise
Structure point-by-point referee responses with classification, agent routing per revision protocol, and diplomatic drafting.
**Input:** `$ARGUMENTS` — path to referee report file(s), optionally followed by paper path.
---
## Workflow
### Step 1: Parse Inputs
1. Read referee report(s) from `$ARGUMENTS`
2. Read the paper (paper/main.tex or specified path)
3. Read revision protocol from rules
4. Read existing scripts to know what analyses already exist
### Step 2: Classify Every Comment
| Class | Routing | Action |
|-------|---------|--------|
| **NEW ANALYSIS** | → Coder agent | Flag for user, create analysis task |
| **CLARIFICATION** | → Writer agent | Draft rewritten section |
| **REWRITE** | → Writer agent | Draft structural revision |
| **DISAGREE** | → User (mandatory) | Draft diplomatic pushback, flag for review |
| **MINOR** | → Writer agent | Draft fix directly |
### Step 3: Build Tracking Document
Save to `quality_reports/referee_response_tracker.md` with:
- Summary counts per referee
- Action items by priority (HIGH: new analysis, MEDIUM: clarification, FLAGGED: disagreements, LOW: minor)
### Step 4: Dispatch Agents
- CLARIFICATION/REWRITE → dispatch Writer with specific instructions
- NEW ANALYSIS → flag for user approval before dispatching Coder
- DISAGREE → draft diplomatic response, flag prominently for user
### Step 5: Draft Response Letter
Generate LaTeX response letter with:
- Summary of major changes
- Point-by-point responses with exact referee quotes
- Color-coded responses
- Page/section references for each change
### Step 6: Diplomatic Disagreement Protocol
When DISAGREE: open with acknowledgment, provide evidence, offer partial concession, NEVER say "the referee is wrong." FLAG for user review.
### Step 7: Save Outputs
1. Tracker: `quality_reports/referee_response_tracker.md`
2. Response letter: `quality_reports/referee_response_[journal]_[date].tex`
3. Revised sections: `paper/sections/` (for CLARIFICATION/REWRITE items)
---
## Principles
- **The response letter is the user's voice.** Match their tone.
- **Never fabricate results.** Mark NEW ANALYSIS items as TBD.
- **Flag all DISAGREE items.** These need human judgment.
- **Track everything.** Every comment appears in both tracker and response letter.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!