Skip to content
Automation
Skill

/revise

R&R cycle — classify referee comments and route to appropriate agents. Replaces /respond-to-referee.

From plugin
auto-empirical-research-skills
3.3k200 skills146 agents
Install
$ npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill revise --agent claude-code

How 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.md
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.
Read more
Ships withauto-empirical-research-skills

📌 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 |

Get the whole plugin