Use when writing the response to an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) revision decision. AgSy review is single anonymized with at least two expert systems reviewers and an editor decision, and revisions often turn on model evaluation, sensitivity/uncertainty, and trade-off framing. The response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 13 of 22 without it.
Without skill59%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Uses blockquotes for quoted reviewer comments followed by explicit response and change location lines
Opens with a short summary of main manuscript changes organized around the editor's decisive priorities
Formats individual referee responses using explicit Response: and Change: tags following each quoted remark
and 8 more in the full report
9 fixed11 passed either way0 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+32 pp
Tokens
+29%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-17%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v120 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 9
Prompt
We just received major revision comments on our Agricultural Systems paper evaluating regional irrigation trade-offs. Reviewer 1 wants five additional climate projection scenarios, but Reviewer 2 insists our simulation model is over-parameterized and demands we simplify it or prove calibration on held-out data. The editor's cover note specifically flagged the calibration and validation concerns as the key issue to resolve. Could you help us construct a structured revision plan and point-by-point response draft? Please include a cover summary for the editor, individual comment responses that explicitly state our action and exact locations of manuscript modifications, and finish with a verification checklist confirming key elements like editor priority alignment, comment coverage, model strengthening, conflict reconciliation, and repository synchronization.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Addresses the editor's primary concern regarding model calibration and validation before resolving reviewer scenario requests
Passed
Passed
Uses blockquotes for quoted reviewer comments followed by explicit response and change location lines
Missed
Passed
Includes the complete bracketed audit verification block containing editor points, coverage, model strengthening, conflict resolution, framing protection, and repository sync status tags
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.md98 linessingle file
Revision & Rebuttal (agsy-revision-and-rebuttal)
A revise decision at AgSy is a real chance — but systems reviewers tend to press on the model
(calibration, evaluation, sensitivity, uncertainty) and the trade-off / decision framing. The
response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the
revision converges. Reviewers are not anonymous to you on their side (single anonymized), but keep the
tone professional and evidence-based.
When to trigger
A major/minor revision decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
Reviewers disagree (e.g., one wants more scenarios, another wants a simpler model)
A reviewer requests additional evaluation, sensitivity, or uncertainty analysis
Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision
Strategy
Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive — often
model evaluation, uncertainty, or systems framing. Solve those first; the editor adjudicates
disagreements among reviewers.
One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the new
text/figure/table number, or the new sensitivity/uncertainty run), or push back respectfully with
a systems reason (boundary, model structure, data, or scale). A well-argued disagreement beats a
capitulation that weakens the analysis.
Strengthen the model, don't just defend it. Most AgSy revisions improve with an added
independent evaluation, a sensitivity / uncertainty analysis, or a clearer trade-off
exhibit. Offer these proactively where reviewers raise doubt.
Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When R1 wants more complexity and R2 wants parsimony, say
so, choose a principled path (justified by the question and the decision relevance), and explain the
tradeoff to the editor.
Protect the systems contribution. Resist changes that turn the paper back into a single-factor
study or dilute the trade-off/decision message. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
Keep the package in sync. Update the deposited data, code, and model so new tables/figures
remain reproducible (see agsy-reproducibility-and-data-policy).
Use when writing the response to a Cognitive Psychology (Elsevier) major/minor revision. Reviews here often demand added experiments, more model comparisons, recovery analyses, or fuller reproducibility, so the response must address every point and strengthen the model-driven inference. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results or model fits.
Use when deciding whether a project fits Agricultural Systems (AgSy) and which article type to target. AgSy is a systems-science journal, so the test is a genuine systems question — interactions among components, across hierarchical levels (field → farm → landscape → region → food system), trade-offs, and emergent behavior — analyzed with integrated modelling, NOT a single-factor field trial. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.