Use when drafting the response letter and revision plan after an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) R&R. Structures the reply to theory referees (correctness, generality, exposition) and editor; it does not re-derive the result (see aejmic-theory-model).
SkillScore100Maintained
Automatic
◆Writing & Editing pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 17 of 22 without it.
Without skill77%
With skill100%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Output requires providing a complete proof for the boundary case.
Output advises granting the introduction clarification request to build goodwill.
Output requires updating the replication package to reflect relabeled theoretical results.
and 2 more in the full report
5 fixed17 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+23 pp
Tokens
+10%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-33%
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 5 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 5
Prompt
We are preparing our revision letter for a game theory submission that got an R&R decision. The referee comments raise three main points: a contested proof step in Lemma 1, a request to extend the model to dynamic payoffs, and a request to clarify the intuition in the introduction. Formulate a comprehensive rebuttal plan formatted to include editor cover note content, point-by-point comment mappings with page/line references, correctness/generality assessments, concede vs defend logs, and changelog verification.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Output advises granting the introduction clarification request to build goodwill.
Missed
Passed
Output requires repairing the contested proof step in Lemma 1.
Passed
Passed
Output mandates providing specific page and line pointers for revised text.
Passed
Passed
case-03 · 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.md69 linessingle file
R&R Rebuttal & Response Letter (aejmic-rebuttal)
When to trigger
An AEJ: Micro decision letter arrived with an R&R (minor or major)
You have referee reports and need a response-letter strategy
A referee disputes a proof, the generality, or the framing and you must decide concede vs. defend
You are sequencing the revision so the most important changes land first
How to respond to theory referees
AEJ: Micro referees are subject-matter experts who verify proofs and judge generality and exposition. The response letter must be precise, respectful, and point-by-point. Three recurring axes:
Correctness: a disputed proof step. Either fix it (and show the corrected argument in the letter), or demonstrate the step is valid with the missing detail. Never wave it away.
Generality / robustness: "does it extend to X?" Decide whether to (a) prove the extension, (b) add it to aejmic-robustness as a result, or (c) explain precisely why the boundary is where it is and add a remark. State the cost of each.
Exposition / scope: "the mechanism is buried" or "the claim is too broad." Re-frame via aejmic-writing-style and bound the claim explicitly.
Letter structure
A short cover note to the editor summarizing the main changes and how the central concern was met.
Point-by-point replies: quote the comment, state the change, point to the page/line and the new/updated proposition or proof.
Concede gracefully where the referee is right; defend with argument (not assertion) where you disagree, and offer a compromise (a remark, a restricted claim) when full concession is wrong.
Keep a changelog of every result that moved (new propositions, relabeled lemmas, added extensions).
Triage the reports before drafting
Not all comments carry equal weight. Sort them:
Central (editor-flagged): the concern the editor named as decisive — resolve it first and lead the cover note with it.
Correctness blockers: any disputed proof or claim — must be fully closed, never deferred.
Generality requests: decide per comment whether to prove, add a robustness result, or bound with a precise argument.
Exposition / framing: usually cheap to grant; granting them buys goodwill for the points you defend.
Reading the decision letter
A minor R&R means the result stands; tighten and answer. A major R&R means at least one referee doubts the contribution or a proof — treat the central concern as the gate to acceptance.
Distinguish what the editor requires (binding) from what a single referee merely suggests (negotiable). Address all, but prioritize by the editor's framing.
Checklist
Cover note to the editor: main changes + how the central concern was addressed
Every referee comment answered point-by-point with a page/line pointer
Disputed proof steps fixed or rigorously defended (no hand-waving)
Each "does it extend?" met by a proof, a new robustness result, or a precise boundary argument
Use when an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Plans and structures the response; it does not run the new analysis (aeja-identification / aeja-robustness) or the submission preflight.