Use when responding to an Annals of the American Association of Geographers decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the subject editor and 1-3 referees across the journal's four areas. Structures the response and revisions; it does not fabricate results.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Writing & Editing pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 7 of 22 without it.
Without skill32%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Uses the header tag 【Next】 for the final action steps.
Identifies ScholarOne as the platform for resubmission.
Includes the header tag 【Decision】 in the document output.
and 16 more in the full report
14 fixed7 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+64 pp
Tokens
+35%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-15%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 14 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 14
Prompt
What should the final line of our response document specify regarding platform and preflight steps for Annals resubmission?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Identifies ScholarOne as the platform for resubmission.
Missed
Passed
Uses the header tag 【Next】 for the final action steps.
Missed
Passed
case-17 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md98 linessingle file
Revision & Rebuttal (aaag-rebuttal)
A major revision at the Annals is a scoped invitation, not a rejection. The response letter is
judged alongside the manuscript by the subject editor who handled it and the 1-3 referees (one
of whom is the editor or designate). Win by addressing every point, respectfully and concretely, and by
strengthening the geographic argument, not just patching mechanics.
When to trigger
A decision letter arrived: minor revision, major revision (R&R), or reject-with-encouragement
Multiple referees disagree, or a referee challenges the area framing, spatial methods, or cartography
You need to decide what to concede, what to push back on, and how to show the changes
Build the response
Open with a synthesis. A short note to the editor summarizing the main changes and how the
revision strengthens the geographic contribution and addresses the area's concerns.
Point-by-point, quote each comment. Reproduce each referee/editor comment verbatim, then respond
directly beneath it. Number them (R1.1, R1.2 …) for easy cross-reference.
Show, don't assert. For each accepted point, quote the revised text and give the
manuscript location (page/section); for new analyses, name the exhibit.
Disagree carefully. Where you decline, give a reasoned, evidence-based rationale and, where
possible, a partial accommodation — never dismiss a referee.
Annals-specific moves
Reconcile cross-area referees. Reviewers may come from different traditions (e.g., a quantitative
and a qualitative reviewer). Address each on its own terms rather than forcing one standard; show
the revision satisfies both where they pull in different directions.
Strengthen the geography, not only the stats. If a referee called the paper descriptive, the fix
is a sharper geographic concept (aaag-theory-building), not just more robustness tables.
Cartography & spatial-method fixes are first-order. Re-projecting maps, fixing classification,
adding spatial-CV or MAUP sensitivity, or an accuracy/error panel are concrete wins editors notice.
Honor the cap on the way back. Revisions add words; re-check the 11,000-word inclusive cap and
trim or move detail to supplementary material.
When referees conflict
Name the conflict for the editor and propose a resolution; do not silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
If a requested change would harm the paper, explain the trade-off and let the editor adjudicate.
Use when writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.