Use after an R&R (or the simulated rehearsal) to turn a referee report into a point-by-point response letter plus a revision plan — editor first, every comment answered, each empirical fix backed by a real re-run via the target pack's skill and the execution bridge. Defers the venue's response format to the pack + source-map.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill rt-response-to-referees --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Rt Response To Referees?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-rt-response-to-referees)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: rt-response-to-referees
description: Use after an R&R (or the simulated rehearsal) to turn a referee report into a point-by-point response letter plus a revision plan — editor first, every comment answered, each empirical fix backed by a real re-run via the target pack's skill and the execution bridge. Defers the venue's response format to the pack + source-map.
---
# Response-to-Referees (rt-response-to-referees)
Draft the reply that decides the second round. Full method:
[`shared-resources/submission-readiness/response-to-referees.md`](../../../shared-resources/submission-readiness/response-to-referees.md).
## When to trigger
- An R&R letter has arrived and needs a point-by-point response + revision.
- You want to convert `rt-simulated-referee` output into a rehearsed reply.
## What it does
1. **Inventory every comment** (per referee + AE), tag major/minor, substantive/clarification.
2. **Editor first** — lead with the AE's decisive concerns.
3. **Classify each response** honestly: concede & fix / address partially / push back with
evidence (rarely, and only when right).
4. **Back substantive fixes with a real re-run** — map each empirical comment to the pack
skill + `rt-execution-bridge`; the number in the reply must be one you actually computed.
5. **Write the letter** — quote each comment, respond beneath it, point to the exact change.
6. **Summarize the changes** in a scannable table.
## Hard rules
1. **Editor first**, then referees.
2. **Every claimed fix corresponds to a real change/re-run**; empirical claims cite a number
produced via the execution bridge.
3. **Answer every comment** — none silently dropped.
4. **Venue response format from the pack + source-map** (some cap length / want a structure).
5. It drafts a *reply*; the author owns final scientific sign-off.
## Output format
```
【Cover note to editor】how the decisive concerns were addressed
【Referee 1】R1.1 (quote) → concede&fix / partial / push-back · what changed · where · new number
【Referee 2】… 【AE】(decisive points first)
【Summary of changes】comment → change → location
【Open/declined】comments not fully addressed, with the honest reason
```
## Anti-patterns
- Silent omission; defensive tone / blanket push-back; "we addressed this" with no real
edit; burying the AE's load-bearing concern.
Next: regenerate affected outputs in `rt-replication-package` so the package matches the revision.
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!