From restat-skills
Drafts response-to-referees letters and revision plans for REStat decision letters. Structures point-by-point replies, triages comments, and flags identification/measurement objections.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/restat-skills:restat-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- A REStat R&R (or a reject with encouragement) arrived and you must respond
A REStat revision is judged on whether you took the identification and measurement concerns seriously and resolved them with evidence, not rhetoric. The editor is an applied economist arbitrating between referees; your letter must make their job easy: every comment quoted, addressed, and pointed to the exact change (page/table/figure). Treat the toughest identification / measurement objection as the centerpiece — that is what gets papers rejected at REStat, and resolving it convincingly is what gets them accepted. Concede gracefully where the referee is right; push back with evidence, never tone where they are wrong.
| Comment type | Response |
|---|---|
| Right and easy | Do it; point to the change |
| Right and hard (new identification/measurement check) | Do it — this is the centerpiece; route to restat-identification / restat-robustness |
| Based on a misreading | Clarify the text so the misreading cannot recur; thank them for flagging the ambiguity |
| Wrong but defensible request | Add as robustness (appendix), keep the main result, explain why |
| Out of scope / would be a different paper | Decline politely; bound the scope in the text; cite where future work could go |
restat-replication-package) so numbers stay consistentReferee 2 writes: "I am not convinced the parallel-trends assumption holds; the treated states look different pre-period." This is the centerpiece — the objection that, unanswered, rejects the paper. A weak reply asserts that pre-trends "look fine." A REStat reply does three things: (1) adds an event-study figure with pre-period leads and a flat, tightly-estimated pre-trend; (2) reports Rambachan–Roth honest bounds showing the effect survives plausible pre-trend violations; (3) points to the exact new exhibit ("new Figure 3, §4.2"). The letter opens by summarizing this as the lead change so the editor sees the hardest concern resolved with evidence first. Easy comments are then dispatched briefly, each with a pointer to the change.
【Decision】R&R / reject-with-encouragement / minor revision
【Major changes summary】[2–4 bullet paragraph for the editor]
【Centerpiece objection】[the hardest identification/measurement concern] → [evidence-based fix]
【Point-by-point coverage】every comment quoted + change named? [Y/N]
【Disagreements】[comment → evidence-backed pushback + middle option]
【Referee conflicts】[surfaced for editor + chosen path]
【Consistency】new numbers re-run through Dataverse package? [Y/N]
【Next step】revise via the relevant analysis skills → restat-submission (resubmit)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin restat-skillsStructures point-by-point response letters and aligned manuscript revisions for REStud referee reports and R&R decisions.
Structures a response-to-referees letter and revision plan for AEJ: Applied R&R or conditional accept decisions. Triages referee comments into must-do, argue, or defer categories.
Structures the response-to-referees letter and revision plan for an Economic Journal decision letter (R&R or reject-with-encouragement). Does not redo the analysis; route to other ecj skills for that.