From sf-skills
Structures a response letter for a Social Forces R&R, addressing each reviewer comment within 10,000-word/10-panel limits and reconciling conflicting demands.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/sf-skills:sf-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A Social Forces **R&R is the normal road to publication** — most accepted papers pass through one. The
A Social Forces R&R is the normal road to publication — most accepted papers pass through one. The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. The SF-specific twist: each new analysis or paragraph you add must still fit the 10,000-word cap (references included) and the 10 tables-and-figure-panels limit, so you often trade content rather than simply add it.
sf-tables-figures,
sf-writing-style).sf-data-and-transparency).For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure-panel number 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. Note where added material went to the supplement to stay within the word and panel caps.
Because an SF R&R must still land within the reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap and the 10-panel limit, every requested addition is a budget decision. Sort demands before drafting:
| Reviewer demand | Default response | Budget handling |
|---|---|---|
| Editor's decisive point | Address fully, first | Spend words/panels here first |
| Reasonable robustness check | Run it | Summary panel in text; grid to supplement |
| Conflicting R2 vs R3 | Pick a principled path | Avoid doubling content to please both |
| Out-of-scope expansion | Reasoned pushback | Protect the contribution and the cap |
Calibration (hedged): most published SF papers pass through at least one R&R; treat decision categories as reported norms to confirm against current guidelines.
A neighborhoods-and-attainment R&R: R1 wants a falsification test, R2 wants a long mechanisms section, R3 calls a control "post-treatment." The editor flagged identification as decisive, so both fixes go in the main text — the new test becomes one panel, replacing a now-redundant robustness table to stay at 10. R2's request gets a tightened passage plus a supplementary analysis, not a section that blows the cap.
Referee fixes: "you ignored my comment" → quote and answer every one; "over length" → move detail to the supplement.
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Budget after revision】≤ 10,000 words (incl. refs) and ≤ 10 panels? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + data statement updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via ScholarOne
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, decision norms, and length/exhibit capsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin sf-skillsStructures a response letter for an American Sociological Review revise-and-resubmit. Handles cross-method reviewer conflicts and protects the paper's contribution.
Structures the response letter for an APSR revise-and-resubmit, converting reviewers while keeping the editor confident. Does not fabricate new results.
Structures a response letter for a JOP revise-and-resubmit that addresses each reviewer comment, respects page budget, preserves double-blind anonymity, and maintains replicability for the JOP replication check.