Skip to content
Back to skills

Prl Revision

ASecurity

Use when responding to Physical Review Letters referee reports or editor decisions — point-by-point reply, resubmission, and the APS appeal route. Structures the response and revision; does not redraft the science from scratch.

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 8 views
  • Added September 12, 2026
ai-agentsgogit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 12, 2026

npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill prl-revision --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Prl Revision?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Prl Revision
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/thedixitjain-prl-revision/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-prl-revision)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: prl-revision
description: "Use when responding to Physical Review Letters referee reports or editor decisions — point-by-point reply, resubmission, and the APS appeal route. Structures the response and revision; does not redraft the science from scratch."
category: general-purpose
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Physical-Review-Letters-Skills/skills/prl-revision/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Physical-Review-Letters-Skills/skills/prl-revision/SKILL.md
---


# PRL Revision (prl-revision)

## When to trigger

- One or more APS referee reports have arrived
- You received an editor decision (revise / reject / reject-with-appeal-option)
- You need to write a point-by-point response letter
- You are weighing resubmission versus appeal versus retargeting to a PR journal

## Read the decision before drafting

APS decisions vary: invitation to revise, rejection that invites resubmission, or rejection on importance/breadth. Match your strategy to the decision:

| Decision                                              | Strategy                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Revise / minor                                        | Address every point; revise manuscript; resubmit promptly      |
| Reject but resubmission encouraged                    | Substantive revision + a response showing what changed         |
| Reject on importance/breadth (science sound)          | Decide: strengthen breadth case + appeal, or retarget PR journal|
| Reject on correctness                                 | Fix the science or retarget; do not appeal a valid technical flaw|

## Point-by-point response structure

For **each** referee comment:

1. **Quote** the comment verbatim (or faithfully paraphrase).
2. **Respond** — agree and act, or disagree with evidence.
3. **Point to the change** — name the exact location ("revised Sec. ..., new Fig. S3, added sentence in para ...").

Conventions that work with APS referees:

- Be **courteous and specific**; never dismissive, even with a hostile report.
- Quote new manuscript text in the reply so the referee sees the change without hunting.
- Mark changes in the manuscript (color or a marked-up version) per current APS practice.
- If you disagree, win on **evidence and physics**, not tone — add a control, a calculation, or a citation.
- Respect the length limit: revisions that add material must re-balance via `prl-length-management` and `prl-supplementary`.

## Worked micro-example: a response entry

**Referee:** "The claimed effect could arise from heating."

**Weak reply:** "We are confident heating plays no role."

**Strong reply:** "We agree this must be excluded. We have added a power-dependence measurement (new Fig. S4): the amplitude is unchanged over a decade of drive power. Sec. III now states: 'The amplitude is power-independent, excluding a thermal origin (SM Sec. S4).'"

The strong reply concedes the concern's legitimacy, answers with a *measurement* rather than confidence, and quotes the new sentence with its location — the pattern for every entry.

## Resubmission packaging

A PRL resubmission is judged as a package:

- **Summary of changes** — lead with the revision answering the decision letter's central concern.
- **One self-contained reply per referee** — do not make Referee B hunt through answers to Referee A.
- **Length re-certification** — added controls count against the deductible budget; state that the revised Letter still passes, or what moved to SM to compensate.
- **Timing** — resubmit complete rather than fast; a second round typically returns to the same referees.

## Handling the breadth/importance rejection specifically

This is the signature PRL outcome. Options:

- **Sharpen, don't inflate.** Make the broad-interest case concrete (`prl-results-framing`, `prl-cover-letter`) — a real cross-field consequence, not louder adjectives.
- **Appeal** through the defined APS route only if you have a substantive argument the editor/referee missed; appeals are not for re-arguing taste.
- **Retarget** to Phys. Rev. A–E / PR Research if the breadth case is genuinely weak — often the faster path to publication (`prl-scope-fit`).

## Checklist

- [ ] Every referee point has an explicit response
- [ ] Each response names the exact manuscript change location
- [ ] New text is quoted in the reply for the referee's convenience
- [ ] Disagreements are backed by evidence/physics, not tone
- [ ] A marked-up / change-highlighted manuscript is prepared
- [ ] Added material is re-balanced against the length limit
- [ ] The Letter still stands alone after revision
- [ ] If appealing, the appeal raises a substantive missed point, not taste
- [ ] If retargeting, the right PR journal is chosen via prl-scope-fit

## Anti-patterns

- A defensive or curt tone toward a difficult referee
- Claiming to have addressed a point without actually changing the text
- Adding rebuttal material that pushes the Letter over the length limit
- Appealing a sound technical rejection instead of fixing the science
- Re-arguing breadth with adjectives instead of a concrete consequence
- Letting revisions make the Letter depend on the SM

## Output format

```
【Decision type】revise / resubmit-encouraged / breadth-reject / correctness-reject
【Point-by-point】N comments — all addressed with locations?  yes / list gaps
【Tone】courteous + evidence-based?  yes / fix
【Length re-balanced after additions】yes / fix
【Stands alone after revision】yes / fix
【Path】resubmit / appeal (substantive?) / retarget via prl-scope-fit
【Next】prl-submission (resubmit) or prl-scope-fit (retarget)
```

> Decision categories, appeal procedures, and markup expectations are durable in spirit; verify the current process on the official APS / PRL author page.

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Physical-Review-Letters-Skills/skills/prl-revision/SKILL.md`

Attribution

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

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.