From ahr-skills
Structures revision and response letters for American Historical Review editorial decisions, addressing multiple expert reports while protecting the manuscript's argument and anonymity.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ahr-skills:ahr-revision-and-responseThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
An AHR decision typically comes with **multiple expert reports** (the journal uses at least six
An AHR decision typically comes with multiple expert reports (the journal uses at least six readers). An R&R is a strong signal at a journal that accepts roughly 8–10%. The response must convert demanding specialists while keeping the editor confident the revision converges — without diluting the historiographical intervention.
ahr-sources-and-archives).ahr-citation-and-style).For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree, grounded in sources or historiography].
Change: [Section/page/note where the revision appears].
Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.
With at least six expert readers, an AHR R&R generates more requests than any revision can adopt wholesale. Sort each demand before you draft the response so the editor sees principled judgment, not reflexive compliance.
| Demand from a report | Disposition | The venue-specific move |
|---|---|---|
| Goes to the editor's decisive points | Adopt first | Make the change and cite the exact section/note in the letter |
| "Read this source more fully" | Adopt with evidence | Return to the document; quote more, supply provenance, or qualify |
| Two readers want opposite things | Choose openly | Pick a principled path and explain the tradeoff to the editor |
| Would flatten or over-extend the argument | Rebut respectfully | Decline with a reason grounded in sources or historiography |
| "Do more archival work" | Scope honestly | Add what is feasible; mark what exceeds the article and why |
Suppose Reader A wants the manuscript's microhistorical chapter expanded into the heart of the article, while Reader B wants it cut as a digression. Capitulating to either breaks something. The response letter names the conflict explicitly, then chooses a principled middle: the micro case stays but is reframed so it visibly carries the article's general claim (answering B's "digression" worry) without ballooning into a second paper (answering A only in part). The letter tells the editor exactly why — the case earns its space by doing argumentative work, not by length — and points to the revised transition that makes that work legible. Each new footnote is in Chicago form and the revised file remains masked.
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Source challenges】answered from the archive? [Y/N]
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Intervention protected + anonymity kept】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via ScholarOne
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, reviewer count, acceptance rate../../resources/external_tools.md — manuscript prep and Chicago-notes toolingnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ahr-skillsStructures the response letter for an APSR revise-and-resubmit, converting reviewers while keeping the editor confident. Does not fabricate new results.
Structures the response letter for an American Educational Research Journal revise-and-resubmit, addressing editor and reviewer comments while protecting the paper's contribution.
Structures the revision of a PMLA essay and the response to readers' reports after a decision. Helps address every reader comment while protecting the argument and maintaining anonymity.