agentleFS
PerryLinkPerryLink/dsh-research-skills/skills/reviewer-response/SKILL.md

reviewer-response

Skill0 starsChanged 5 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Turn reviewer comments into a numbered, evidence-backed response letter with no unanswered or overclaimed point.

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Every reviewer comment gets a number and an answer.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not promise a revision that was not made.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not answer two comments with one vague paragraph.

    line 31
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not cite a paper you did not verify.

    line 32

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Reviewer response

Rules

  • Every reviewer comment gets a number and an answer; "we disagree" is an answer, silence is not.
  • A response that cites a change must say where the change is (section/page/line).
  • Do not promise a revision that was not made.

Steps

  1. Parse the comments with response_letter (Reviewer/Referee/审稿人 headers, numbered or paragraph mode).
  2. For each point, decide: accept (change), clarify (text), or rebut (evidence).
  3. For factual rebuttals, run cite_verify / claim_check and cite evidence ids.
  4. Re-run manuscript_check and statcheck after edits.
  5. Export the letter with response_letter; attach the sealed evidence record.

Output

  • Coverage table: comment number, decision, change location, evidence id.
  • Missing/too-short/extra responses listed explicitly.
  • A cover note that does not overstate the revision.

Never

  • Do not answer two comments with one vague paragraph.
  • Do not cite a paper you did not verify.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.