Use when responding to Advanced Materials reviewer reports and an editor's decision — major or minor revision, or a rejection with a resubmission or transfer path. Structures the response and the manuscript changes; does not perform the underlying new experiments.
SkillScore100Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 18 of 22 without it.
Without skill82%
With skill100%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Output includes the header field 【Next】
Output includes the header field 【Decision type】
Output includes the header field 【Disagreements】
and 4 more in the full report
4 fixed18 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+18 pp
Tokens
+16%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-29%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v122 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 4
Prompt
We just got our peer review reports back from Advanced Materials for our manuscript on high-entropy alloy catalysts. Reviewer 1 asked for long-term durability testing and XRD Rietveld refinement, while Reviewer 2 questioned our SOTA comparisons. The editor offered us a major revision. Please help me organize our rebuttal package. Lay out the decision classification, provide structured responses for each reviewer comment listing what we changed, where it is located, and the supporting evidence, itemize all the new characterization or stability data we introduced, note any data-backed arguments for points we contest, confirm marked-up file status and length/citation re-audit checks, and suggest the appropriate next workflow step.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Output includes the header field 【Decision type】
Missed
Passed
Output includes the header field 【Per-point responses】
Missed
Passed
Output includes the header field 【Next】
Missed
Passed
case-01 · 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.md80 linessingle file
Advanced Materials Revision (advmat-revision)
When to trigger
Reviewer reports and an editor decision (major/minor revision, or reject) have arrived
You need a point-by-point response and a marked-up manuscript
Referees asked for additional characterization, benchmarking, or stability data
The decision is a rejection and you must decide: appeal, revise-and-resubmit, or transfer
A coauthor is drafting rebuttal language before the manuscript has actually changed
Read the decision before the reports
The editor's letter sets the terms; read it first.
Minor revision — largely presentational or small additions; turn it around promptly and precisely.
Major revision — substantive concerns; usually requires new data (added characterization, controls, stability). Address the science first, the prose second.
Reject with encouragement to resubmit — treat as a major revision with a higher bar; the resubmission is judged largely on whether the core objection is truly resolved.
Reject — decide between a reasoned appeal (only if the editor/referee made a clear factual error) and a transfer to a sibling Wiley journal (Adv. Funct. Mater., Adv. Sci., Small, AMI), which may carry the reviews with it.
Response-letter structure
Open with thanks and a summary of the main changes and the new data added.
Quote each referee point verbatim, then respond immediately beneath it.
For every point: state what you changed, where (section/figure/SI number), and the evidence. "We added X" with a pointer beats a paragraph of argument.
Where you disagree, do so with data and courtesy — concede what is fair, defend what the evidence supports, never dismiss.
Provide a marked-up manuscript (tracked changes or highlighted) alongside the clean version.
Answering the characteristic materials objections
Referee asks for...
Strongest response
Proof the phase/structure is real
Add the complementary technique (SAED, EXAFS, Rietveld) they expect
Representative morphology
Add distributions/statistics over many particles/devices
Fair benchmarking
Add a matched-condition comparison table with cited SOTA references
Stability / durability
Add cycling/aging/operational-stability data (often to the SI)
Mechanism, not just correlation
Add the control or computation that isolates the mechanism
Reproducibility
Add batch-to-batch statistics (n, mean ± s.d.) and full recipe in SI
"Why not a lower-tier journal?"
Sharpen the advance framing and the broad-impact argument
Do the experiment when the objection is fair. A rebuttal that argues around missing data rarely survives a second round.