Revise an academic paper based on journal referee reports. Reads referee comments from review report or annotated manuscript, then directly modifies main.tex one comment at a time with user approval. Generates response letter after revision.
SkillScore64Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/7/2026
What it changes
Passed 11 of 17 test cases with the skill, and 2 of 17 without it.
Without skill14%
With skill64%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Prohibits reporting p-values.
Requires reporting t-statistics in parentheses.
Prohibits reporting p-values in revised paper text.
and 10 more in the full report
11 fixed3 passed either way8 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+50 pp
Tokens
+361%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-37%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/7/2026v114 of 22 cases passed with skill · 17 comparable
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 11 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 11
Prompt
In Phase 4 interactive text revision, when proposing a revision to the author, what four exact choice options should be offered for the author's decision?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Presents the four decision options: yes, no, skip, edit.
Missed
Passed
case-16 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/7/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md430 linessingle file
Paper Referee Revise
Overview
This skill revises an academic paper (main.tex) based on journal referee reports received during the peer review process. The user provides a project folder containing the manuscript, supporting files, and referee materials. The skill extracts referee comments, triages empirical work, then processes text revisions one by one with user approval, and finally drafts a response letter.
Input: A project folder containing:
main.tex — the main manuscript (the source file; will NOT be overwritten)
Subfolders with figures/tables (referenced by the manuscript)
An annotated manuscript (e.g., annotated.tex, annotated.pdf) where annotations/comments from the referee serve as review comments
Multiple referee reports (e.g., referee1.pdf, referee2.pdf) — process each referee's comments separately
Output:
If empirical comments exist: generates empirical-revise.pdf (empirical revision strategy) and halts.
If no empirical comments (or empirical work already done): generates main-rX.tex (revised manuscript with changes in red) and response-rX.tex (response letter), then halts.
Workflow
Phase 1: Initialization
Receive folder path from user (via $ARGUMENTS or ask).
Ask the user: "本次修改为第几轮修改？(Please enter the revision round number, e.g., 1, 2, 3)" Store the answer as X — this determines output file names: main-rX.tex and response-rX.tex.
Determine the source manuscript based on revision round:
If X = 1: the source file is main.tex.
If X = 2: the source file is main-r1.tex.
If X = 3: the source file is main-r2.tex.
General rule: for round X, the source file is main-r{X-1}.tex (i.e., the output of the previous round). If X = 1, use main.tex.
Verify the source file exists. If it does not (e.g., user says round 2 but main-r1.tex is missing), alert the user and ask them to confirm.
Scan the folder using Glob to identify all files:
Locate the source manuscript file (as determined in step 3 — read only, never overwrite).
Locate referee materials by searching for files matching patterns: referee*, report*, review*, R1*, R2*, R3*, annotated*, comments*, feedback*, revision*.
If multiple referee report files are found, list them and ask the user which one(s) to use and in what order.
If no referee file is found, ask the user to specify the file path.
Read the source manuscript in full to understand the current state of the paper.
Read all table and figure .tex files from subfolders so that you have full knowledge of the paper's empirical results. This is critical for proposing accurate revisions when referees comment on results.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers.