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).
SkillScore96Maintained
Automatic
◆Writing & Editing pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 24 of 25 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 25 without it.
Without skill44%
With skill96%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Output sets 【Concessions】 status to Y.
Output sets 【Spine intact】 status to Y.
Output includes the bracketed header 【Length】.
and 17 more in the full report
14 fixed10 passed either way0 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+52 pp
Tokens
+15%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-32%
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 14 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 14
Prompt
We have finished addressing all review comments, updated search documentation, verified page proofs, and kept the word count under the limit. What is the required final action to conclude the process?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Output specifies delivering the point-by-point response letter with the revised manuscript to the editor.
Missed
Passed
Output includes the bracketed header 【Next step】.
Missed
Passed
case-25 · 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.md64 linessingle file
Revision — Responding to the Editor & Committee (arpsych-revision)
When to trigger
A review letter arrived from the ARPsych Editor or a Committee member on the delivered draft
Copyediting or proof queries need responses
Reviewers flag coverage gaps, balance problems, length over-run, or accuracy issues
You must turn comments into a tracked, point-by-point revision
What ARPsych review focuses on (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
The Committee assesses delivered reviews for accuracy, rigor, and balance (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So letters tend to cluster on a few predictable axes — diagnose which you are facing, because the fix differs:
Comment type
What it really means
Fix route
"Missing literature X"
a coverage gap threatens authority
re-run targeted search; place X in a framework cell (arpsych-literature-synthesis)
"Reads as advocacy / under-covers camp Y"
balance failure
strengthen the rival account; re-weigh by credibility (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance)
"Effect Z is overstated / didn't replicate"
accuracy/replication issue
recalibrate confidence language; flag replication status
"Over the assigned length"
scope too broad
narrow the organizing question, not just trim words (arpsych-organizing-framework)
"Hard to follow / too specialist"
accessibility
rewrite for the adjacent reader (arpsych-writing-style)
"Where does this come from?"
transparency
document the search / deposit meta-analysis materials (arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility)
How to respond
Point-by-point response letter. Quote each comment; state the change; cite the new section/figure/line. Be gracious — these are senior colleagues curating a volume of record.
Concede genuine coverage/accuracy gaps. A missed literature or an overstated effect is a real problem in a review of record; fix it, do not argue it away.
Defend with evidence, not authority. Where you disagree, make the case from the literature and the framework — never "as the invited expert, I judge…".
Protect the spine. Add requested coverage into existing framework cells; do not bolt on a disconnected section that breaks the organizing idea.
Honor length. If adding material, cut elsewhere to stay within the assigned length (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Proof stage. At copyediting/proofs, check that house-style edits did not distort meaning and that re-rendered figures are accurate; answer queries promptly to protect the volume schedule.
Checklist
Every comment addressed in a quoted, point-by-point letter
Genuine coverage/accuracy gaps conceded and fixed (not argued away)
Disagreements defended from literature/framework, not authorial standing
New material folded into existing framework cells (spine intact)
Confidence/replication language recalibrated where accuracy was challenged
Length kept within the assigned limit after additions (cut to fit)
Transparency/meta-analysis materials updated if the search changed
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).