Use when responding to an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) proposal decision or full-review referee letter — framework/attitude asks, coverage gaps, balance complaints, and accessibility. Drafts the response letter and revision plan; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or redesign the framework from scratch (amann-organizing-framework).
SkillScore86Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 17 of 22 without it.
Without skill77%
With skill86%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Classifies the feedback as proposal-stage fit/promise feedback.
Warns against scope bloat that prevents the review paper from finishing.
Recommends re-running literature saturation checks after adding the missing stream.
and 3 more in the full report
5 fixed14 passed either way0 still failing3 broke
Pass-rate lift
+9 pp
Tokens
+40%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-20%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v119 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
A referee pointed out that our review completely missed the institutional theory stream of literature. Should we defend why this stream was excluded or integrate it into our framework? Outline the response approach.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Advises conceding the omission and integrating the literature stream into the appropriate framework cell.
Missed
Passed
Recommends re-running literature saturation checks after adding the missing stream.
Missed
Passed
case-09 · 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.md74 linessingle file
Revision & Response for a Review (amann-revision)
When to trigger
A proposal decision letter arrived (invited / revise-and-resubmit / declined)
A full-review referee letter arrived (major revision is the norm for a long review)
Referees flagged "no real framework," missing streams, imbalance, or "reads like a list"
You need a point-by-point response letter for a review article, not a primary paper
First: which letter is this?
Annals' two-step process produces two kinds of feedback, and they call for different moves:
Proposal-stage feedback (double-blind, from the Associate Editors). The decision is mainly about fit and promise: is the literature Annals-scale, and is there a genuinely new framework under "New insights"? A revise-and-resubmit here usually means sharpen the contribution before the full review is invited — route back through amann-topic-selection / amann-organizing-framework / amann-proposal-framing.
Full-review feedback (editor-only: Associate Editor and Editor). The review is being developed; feedback is about execution — framework strength, coverage, balance, attitude, accessibility. This is the classic point-by-point revision below.
Categories of full-review feedback (and how to answer each)
Triage every point into one bucket:
Feedback type
Typical phrasing
Response move
Framework / contribution
"this is an annotated bibliography" / "where is the integration?"
strengthen or make explicit the spine (amann-organizing-framework); do not just reorder — this is the acceptance bar
Attitude / agenda
"this is descriptive; take a position" / "the agenda is generic"
add the critical position and a framework-tied agenda (amann-writing-style)
Coverage gap
"you omit the X stream / author Y"
almost always concede and integrate; place the work in the right cell; re-run saturation (amann-literature-synthesis)
Balance / fairness
"this slights school Z / over-cites the author"
steelman the slighted side; re-audit self-citation (amann-evidence-standards)
Appraisal accuracy
"you mischaracterize study W"
correct it precisely — reviewed authors often referee
Scope
"too broad / too narrow"
renegotiate with the editor (amann-editor-strategy); rescope deliberately, not by random cuts
Writing the response letter
Point-by-point, quote-then-respond. Reproduce each comment, then state the change and where it lives (section/page/table/figure).
Framework asks are existential — answer them first. "No real framework" is a reject reason at Annals; a stronger or more explicit spine, not reordered paragraphs, is the required answer.
Coverage asks: concede gracefully and integrate. A missing stream is a real defect in a review-of-the-field; adding it strengthens the article. Resist defensiveness.
Balance asks: show the steelman. Demonstrate the revised text states the other side at its strongest.
Disagree rarely and respectfully. If an ask would break the framework or expand scope unfinishably, explain the trade-off and propose an alternative, ideally pre-cleared with the editor.
Keep the editor central. Because the full review is developed with the AE and Editor, route scope conflicts and incompatible asks to them rather than trying to satisfy everyone.
Track every addition's ripple. Adding a stream can shift the review's center of gravity; after each integration, re-check that the framework cells, the synthesis tables, and the balance audit still hold.
Use when responding to the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editor's or Committee's peer-review letter on a delivered review, or to copyediting/proof queries. Handles the post-delivery revision loop; it does not run the pre-delivery preflight (arpsych-submission) or re-audit balance from scratch (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).