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.
SkillScore100Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 23 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 15 of 23 without it.
Without skill65%
With skill100%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The summary section identifies Sage Track as the resubmission platform.
The response names Sage Track as the submission portal for ASR resubmissions.
The output advises against dismissing the reviewer's methodological tradition.
and 7 more in the full report
8 fixed15 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+35 pp
Tokens
+28%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-29%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v123 of 23 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 8 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 8
Prompt
What specific editorial tracking platform is used for submitting revised manuscripts and response letters for the American Sociological Review?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response names Sage Track as the submission portal for ASR resubmissions.
Missed
Passed
case-19 · 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.md111 linessingle file
R&R Rebuttal (asr-rebuttal)
An ASR R&R is the normal road to publication for a promising paper — and it usually asks for
substantial revision. Reviewers often come from different methodological traditions, so the
response letter must satisfy a skeptic of your method without breaking the paper, while the editor
adjudicates.
When to trigger
An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
Reviewers disagree (e.g., a quantitative and a qualitative reviewer want different things)
A reviewer requests analyses or evidence 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 flags which points are decisive — solve
those first; the editor adjudicates conflicts 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).
A well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
Reconcile cross-method reviewers openly. When a quantitative reviewer and a qualitative
reviewer pull in opposite directions, 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, evidence, and clarifications; resist changes that
dilute the broad-significance claim or the portable mechanism that earned the R&R.
Keep masking intact in the revised manuscript, and update data documentation so any new
tables/figures stay grounded (see asr-data-and-transparency).
Response-letter format
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].
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.