Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/commres-rebuttal
Use when revising a Communication Research (CR) manuscript after a revise-and-resubmit. CR requires two independent reviews to advance, so the hard problem is satisfying two quantitatively demanding referees — often on measurement, mediation, and confounds — inside the 45-page limit. Plans the revision and response memo; it does not fabricate new results.
Passed 17 of 25 test cases with the skill, and 5 of 25 without it.
and 14 more in the full report
12 fixed5 passed either way8 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 12 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We have finalized our revised manuscript, supplementary files, and response memo for Communication Research. Which online submission portal should we prepare to upload our files to?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Specifies SAGE Track as the target portal for submission. | Missed | Passed |
| Includes the bracketed section header 【Next】. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
A CR R&R is won by satisfying two independent expert reviewers at once (CR needs two reviews to back a Revise/Accept), usually on measurement validity, the tested mechanism, and confound control — and you must do it inside the 45-page (double-spaced, inclusive of references) limit. This skill is about that brokering and the page budget, not about inventing data.
For each reviewer, label what "convincing" means: stronger measurement (CFA, reliability, discriminant validity), a tighter mechanism (better mediation identification, manipulated mediator, bootstrap CIs), confound/CMV control, or robustness. CR's two-review rule means a single enthusiastic reviewer cannot carry the paper — identify the skeptical reviewer and make sure the revision answers them, not only the encouraging one. The editor's letter tells you which demands are load-bearing.
Every comment resolves to one of four moves; three cost pages:
| Move | When | Page-budget effect |
|---|---|---|
| Do in main text | load-bearing; the editor flagged it | costs pages — find offsets |
| Do in supplement | adds rigor but not the core argument | frees main-text pages (scales/CFA/robustness) |
| Reframe, don't add | the concern is about framing/interpretation, not missing analysis | cheap; often the best move |
| Decline, with a reason | the request breaks the design or rests on a misreading | costs nothing; must be argued, not dodged |
When you add, say what you cut or moved to stay under 45 pages — reviewers trust a stated tradeoff more than a paper that silently bloats. Most measurement and robustness detail belongs in the supplement.
| Typical CR R&R demand | Why it lands | The revision move |
test cases passed, vs 5 / 25 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.