Revise
SkillAI & modelsR&R cycle, classify referee comments and route to appropriate agents. Replaces /respond-to-referee.
Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.
Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.
Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.
Then ask your AI: use the Revise skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/auto-empirical-research-skills in skills/16-hsantanna88-clo-author/dot-claude/skills/revise/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Structure point-by-point referee responses with classification, agent routing per revision protocol, and diplomatic drafting.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to referee report file(s), optionally followed by paper path.
Workflow
Step 1: Parse Inputs
- Read referee report(s) from
$ARGUMENTS - Read the paper (paper/main.tex or specified path)
- Read revision protocol from rules
- Read existing scripts to know what analyses already exist
Step 2: Classify Every Comment
| Class | Routing | Action |
|---|---|---|
| NEW ANALYSIS | → Coder agent | Flag for user, create analysis task |
| CLARIFICATION | → Writer agent | Draft rewritten section |
| REWRITE | → Writer agent | Draft structural revision |
| DISAGREE | → User (mandatory) | Draft diplomatic pushback, flag for review |
| MINOR | → Writer agent | Draft fix directly |
Step 3: Build Tracking Document
Save to quality_reports/referee_response_tracker.md with:
- Summary counts per referee
- Action items by priority (HIGH: new analysis, MEDIUM: clarification, FLAGGED: disagreements, LOW: minor)
Step 4: Dispatch Agents
- CLARIFICATION/REWRITE → dispatch Writer with specific instructions
- NEW ANALYSIS → flag for user approval before dispatching Coder
- DISAGREE → draft diplomatic response, flag prominently for user
Step 5: Draft Response Letter
Generate LaTeX response letter with:
- Summary of major changes
- Point-by-point responses with exact referee quotes
- Color-coded responses
- Page/section references for each change
Step 6: Diplomatic Disagreement Protocol
When DISAGREE: open with acknowledgment, provide evidence, offer partial concession, NEVER say "the referee is wrong." FLAG for user review.
Step 7: Save Outputs
- Tracker:
quality_reports/referee_response_tracker.md - Response letter:
quality_reports/referee_response_[journal]_[date].tex - Revised sections:
paper/sections/(for CLARIFICATION/REWRITE items)
Principles
- The response letter is the user's voice. Match their tone.
- Never fabricate results. Mark NEW ANALYSIS items as TBD.
- Flag all DISAGREE items. These need human judgment.
- Track everything. Every comment appears in both tracker and response letter.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 4k
- Forks
- 531
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
revise-brycewang-stanford- Source
- github.com/brycewang-stanford/auto-empirical-research-skills
github.com/brycewang-stanford/auto-empirical-research-skills
Related picks
Skill · k-dense-ai
The pick for LaTeXlatex-drawing-guide
Skill · brycewang-stanford
The pick for LaTeXobsidian-markdown
Skill · agricidaniel
The pick for Markdownmarkdown-formatter
Skill · nvidia
The pick for Markdownacademic-paper-composer
Skill · brycewang-stanford
The pick for Academic03-academic-writing
Skill · 24kchengye
The pick for Academic