Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cell-rebuttal
Use after Cell reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize the (often substantial) new experiments by impact × feasibility, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and closes the "completeness" gaps reviewers demand. Do not run before the experiments and revision are actually done.
Passed 17 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 23 without it.
and 2 more in the full report
4 fixed13 passed either way5 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Our team has completed revision experiments for our Cell manuscript and we are preparing the final submission package. Here are the editor's letter, the reviewer reports, and our new data. Please generate a full strategic summary and rebuttal document. The output should outline the decision status and load-bearing editor points, provide an organized breakdown sorting every reviewer comment by response strategy, present a ranked list of the executed experiments, assess mechanism completeness, and include a complete point-by-point response letter that begins with an overall summary of major revisions and pairs each verbatim reviewer comment with quoted manuscript changes and new figure callouts.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Uses top-level bracketed section headers 【Decision type】, 【Editor's load-bearing concerns】, 【Deal-breaker】, 【Comment triage】, 【Experiment priority】, 【Completeness gap】, and 【Response letter】. | Missed | Passed |
| Categorizes all reviewer comments into the four buckets Do, Do-partial, Defend, and Defer. | Missed | Passed |
| Opens the response letter section with a summary of major revision changes and new experiments before listing point-by-point responses. | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Cell reviews are typically detailed and demanding, and frequently request substantial new experiments to make the story airtight. The recurring theme is completeness: reviewers push for the mechanism to be fully nailed down, alternatives excluded, and causality proven. Expect to do real bench work, not just rewriting.
The editor's framing outranks individual reviewers. Identify:
The editor often signals which reviewer requests are essential versus optional. Weight the response accordingly — do not treat all three reviewers as equal if the editor has prioritized.
| Bucket | Action |
|---|---|
| Do (fair, feasible) | Run the experiment / make the change; show it; quote the new figure. |
| Do-partial | Do what's feasible; explain the boundary with evidence. |
| Defend (wrong/out of scope) | Push back respectfully, with data/citations — not assertion. |
| Defer (future work) | Acknowledge; add a sentence to the text; don't over-promise. |
Most rejections-on-revision come from silently skipping a load-bearing comment or defending when an experiment was actually required to complete the story.
test cases passed, vs 14 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.