Use when writing the response to an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) revise-and-resubmit. The revised manuscript stays double-blind, the response memorandum is submitted anonymized, and any new analyses must keep the replication package re-runnable for the third-party verifier at acceptance. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.
SkillScore96Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 24 of 25 test cases with the skill, and 21 of 25 without it.
Without skill84%
With skill96%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The output starts with or contains the exact bracketed section header 【Editor's decisive points】.
The response requires that the new plot be fully integrated into and generated by the master script.
The response includes the required bracketed output structure starting with 【Editor's decisive points】.
and 2 more in the full report
3 fixed21 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+12 pp
Tokens
+18%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-38%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v124 of 25 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 3
Prompt
I just received a Revise and Resubmit decision on my political science paper at AJPS. Reviewer 1 requested additional sensitivity checks, Reviewer 2 wants us to switch methodologies, and the editor's letter specifically highlighted clarifying our identification strategy. I've drafted an outline of responses and code updates. Please evaluate my revision plan and response memorandum strategy, providing a structured assessment covering editor priority alignment, comment coverage, explicit concede/rebut tagging with location citations, reviewer conflict resolution, preservation of core design/code re-runnability/anonymity, and next resubmission actions.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The output starts with or contains the exact bracketed section header 【Editor's decisive points】.
Missed
Passed
The output contains the exact bracketed section headers 【Coverage】, 【Concede vs rebut】, 【Reviewer conflicts】, 【Contribution protected】, 【Anonymity + package】, and 【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.md98 linessingle file
R&R Rebuttal (ajps-rebuttal)
An AJPS R&R is a real opportunity — most accepted papers earn it through revision. The response
must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision converges, and it carries
two AJPS-specific constraints: the resubmission stays double-blind (the response memorandum is
uploaded anonymized), and any new analysis must keep the deposited code re-runnable, because a
third-party verifier will re-run it at acceptance (see ajps-replication-and-verification).
When to trigger
An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response memorandum
Reviewers disagree and you must reconcile their demands
A reviewer requests analyses that would change the paper's claims
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 reviewers.
One point-by-point memorandum, 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/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, evidence). A
well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When R2 wants the opposite of R3, say so, choose a
principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
Protect the contribution and the identification. Add robustness and clarifications; resist
changes that dilute the generalizable claim or weaken the design that earned the R&R.
Keep it anonymous and re-runnable. The revised manuscript stays double-blind (no
acknowledgments/funding/first-person self-cites added back in), the memorandum is uploaded
anonymized, and every new exhibit must be regenerated by the master script so verification at
acceptance will pass.
Use when responding to an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) decision — an R&R response letter to multiple double-blind reviewers and the editor, or an author Reply to a published Comment in AJS's Comment-and-Reply tradition. Structures a persuasive, evidence-based response; it does not fabricate results or contact editors.
Use to understand how the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind peer review, desk screening, decision categories, the methodology-only Research Note and Correspondence routes, and the third-party verification that follows acceptance. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.