/revise
R&R cycle — classify referee comments and route to appropriate agents. Replaces /respond-to-referee.
$ npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill revise --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/revise
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
R&R cycle — classify referee comments and route to appropriate agents. Replaces /respond-to-referee.
SKILL.md
revise.SKILL.mdname: 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.
Read more
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.
📌 文档结构(2026-07-22 起): 本文件是中文默认入口 —— banner + badges + 信任面 + 9 阶段流水线速览 + 76 行合集总表。 每个合集的完整描述、按用途分组、精确数字、验证方法在 docs/CONTENT_ZH.md(扩展正文,总表行内的 → 直接跳转到对应锚点)。 English version: README-en.md · 中文扩展正文:docs/CONTENT_ZH.md · README-zh-CN.md 已弃用(重定向占位) 🌐 语言: English |
Other skills on auto-empirical-research-skills.
- /pipeline
Classical end-to-end empirical analysis workflow in the traditional Python econometric stack — pandas + numpy + scipy + statsmodels + linearmodels + pyfixest + rdrobust + econml + causalml + matplotlib/seaborn. **Defaults to economics empirical-paper style** (AER / QJE / AEJ) —
Open skill - /pipeline
Classical end-to-end empirical analysis workflow in the modern tidyverse + econometrics R ecosystem — dplyr + tidyr + haven + fixest + sandwich + lmtest + clubSandwich + AER + ivreg + did + bacondecomp + HonestDiD + eventstudyr + rdrobust + rddensity + Synth + gsynth + synthdid
Open skill - /pipeline
Classical end-to-end empirical analysis workflow in the traditional Stata ecosystem — native Stata + reghdfe + ivreg2 + csdid + did_imputation + eventstudyinteract + sdid + rdrobust + rddensity + synth + synth_runner + psmatch2 + teffects + ebalance + coefplot + esttab + asdoc +
Open skill - /00-Full-empirical-analysis-skill_StatsPAI
Use when the user asks to run a full empirical / causal analysis in Python — by default in the style of an applied economics paper (AER / QJE / JPE / ReStud / AEJ) with DID / RD / IV / SCM / DML / matching, written-out estimating equation + identifying assumption, Table 1 /
Open skill - /00.1-Full-empirical-analysis-skill_Python
Classical end-to-end empirical analysis workflow in the traditional Python econometric stack — pandas + numpy + scipy + statsmodels + linearmodels + pyfixest + rdrobust + econml + causalml + matplotlib/seaborn. **Defaults to economics empirical-paper style** (AER / QJE / AEJ) —
Open skill - /00.2-Full-empirical-analysis-skill_Stata
Classical end-to-end empirical analysis workflow in the traditional Stata ecosystem — native Stata + reghdfe + ivreg2 + csdid + did_imputation + eventstudyinteract + sdid + rdrobust + rddensity + synth + synth_runner + psmatch2 + teffects + ebalance + coefplot + esttab + asdoc +
Open skill

