Use when writing the response to an American Political Science Review (APSR) revise-and-resubmit. APSR reserves R&R for papers close to publishable, and decisions weigh strong support from all or nearly all reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
SkillScore92Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 23 without it.
Without skill63%
With skill92%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response contains the bracketed section 【Contribution protected】.
The response notes that silence on any comment reads as non-compliance.
The response explicitly documents this tradeoff for the editor's adjudication.
and 7 more in the full report
7 fixed15 passed either way2 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+29 pp
Tokens
+51%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-17%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v122 of 24 cases passed with skill · 23 comparable
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 a Revise & Resubmit decision on my American Political Science Review paper. The editor highlighted our identification strategy as critical, while Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3 gave opposing advice regarding our empirical section—R2 wants us to add qualitative case studies, but R3 wants us to cut them entirely for more cross-national regressions. Could you help me draft a structured response letter strategy that addresses every referee comment and handles the disagreement between R2 and R3? Please include a complete status breakdown at the end showing comment coverage, how editor priorities were handled, and the next steps for resubmission.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response includes the bracketed summary section containing 【Editor's decisive points】.
Missed
Passed
The response addresses the editor's priority point regarding the identification strategy before or above general reviewer points.
Passed
Passed
The response explicitly explains the tradeoff and principled resolution between Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3 to the editor.
Passed
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.md113 linessingle file
R&R Rebuttal (apsr-rebuttal)
An APSR R&R is a strong signal — it is "reserved for papers very close to publishable quality."
But publication generally needs strong support from all or nearly all reviewers, and the call is
the editor's discretion. So the response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while
keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent.
When to trigger
An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
Reviewers disagree with each other 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 and foremost; 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/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, or evidence).
Editors respect a well-argued disagreement more than a hollow 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. Don't silently satisfy one and ignore the
other.
Protect the contribution. Add robustness and clarifications; resist changes that dilute the
general-significance claim that earned the R&R. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-anonymous), and update the
reproducibility package so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see
apsr-transparency-and-data-policy).
Response-letter format
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Use when writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.