Use when responding to an American Historical Review (AHR) decision — a revise-and-resubmit or rejection. AHR articles are read by at least six demanding specialists, so the response must address expert reports while protecting the argument and keeping the manuscript anonymized. Structures the revision and response letter; it does not fabricate new evidence.
SkillScore100Maintained
Automatic
◆Writing & Editing pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 16 of 22 without it.
Without skill73%
With skill100%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response specifies prioritizing editor points first.
The response identifies ScholarOne as the submission platform.
The response specifies ScholarOne as the portal for resubmission.
and 4 more in the full report
6 fixed16 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+27 pp
Tokens
+36%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-19%
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 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 6
Prompt
I just received an R&R from the American Historical Review with reports from six readers. I need help structuring my response letter and checking my revision plan. Please map out how I should answer the feedback, ensuring I prioritize what the editor highlighted, address every critique, detail concessions or pushbacks with specific page/note locations, handle source critiques, resolve conflicting reviewer requests, and verify that my core thesis is preserved while maintaining double-blind anonymity. Include a summary block at the end checking off editor priorities, comment coverage, concession/rebuttal tags, archive responses, conflict resolutions, intervention protection/anonymity, and resubmission steps.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response states that editor priorities must be addressed before individual reviewer comments.
Passed
Passed
The response formats comment entries with quoted feedback.
Passed
Passed
The response specifies ScholarOne as the portal for resubmission.
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.md106 linessingle file
Revision & Response (ahr-revision-and-response)
An AHR decision typically comes with multiple expert reports (the journal uses at least six
readers). An R&R is a strong signal at a journal that accepts roughly 8–10%. The response must
convert demanding specialists while keeping the editor confident the revision converges — without
diluting the historiographical intervention.
When to trigger
An R&R arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
Reviewers disagree with each other and you must reconcile their demands
A reviewer challenges your reading of a source or asks for more archival work
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; solve
those first. The editor adjudicates disagreements among readers.
One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Silence
reads as non-compliance.
Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the
new passage/note), or push back respectfully with a reason grounded in sources, historiography,
or interpretation. Historians respect a well-argued disagreement more than a hollow capitulation.
Answer source challenges with the archive. If a reviewer doubts a reading, return to the
document — quote more fully, supply provenance, or qualify the claim (see
ahr-sources-and-archives).
Reconcile conflicting readers openly. When two reviewers want opposite things, say so, choose a
principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
Protect the intervention. Add evidence and nuance; resist changes that flatten the argument or
over-extend it beyond what the sources bear.
Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-blind) and ensure new notes stay
in Chicago form (see ahr-citation-and-style).
Use when writing the response to an American Sociological Review (ASR) revise-and-resubmit. ASR R&Rs typically demand substantial revision and reviewers may span different methodological traditions, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.