Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills --skill peer-review-responsegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/peer-review-response)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/peer-review-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/peer-review-response/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/peer-review-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/peer-review-response.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.02150 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01075 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
peer-review-response scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Peer Review Response
The peer review response is one of the most high-stakes documents in academic publishing. A poorly written rebuttal can cause editors to reject a paper that might have been accepted. A masterful response can rescue a paper from rejection.
Understanding the Editor's Decision Letter
Decision Types and What They Mean
| Decision | What It Means | Typical Revision Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Rare on first submission; paper is accepted as-is | Minor typographical corrections only |
| Minor Revision | Accept in principle; small changes needed | 1–2 weeks; targeted fixes |
| Major Revision | Accept possible if concerns are adequately addressed | 1–3 months; possibly new analyses |
| Reject with Invitation to Resubmit | The paper needs fundamental reworking | Major restructuring; treated as new submission |
| Reject | Paper is not suitable for this journal | Consider a different journal |
Reading the Decision Letter Strategically
- Read the editor's letter first, not the reviews — The editor often summarises the key issues
- Identify which concerns the editor highlights — These carry more weight than reviewer-only concerns
- Rank the reviewer comments — Distinguish mandatory changes from suggestions
- Check the deadline — Most journals give 30–60 days for major revisions; request an extension if needed
Rebuttal Letter Structure
Standard Format
Part 1: Cover Letter to the Editor
Dear [Editor Name],
We thank you and the reviewers for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript entitled "[Title]" (Manuscript ID: [ID]). We have carefully considered all comments and have made substantial revisions to the manuscript. We believe the revised manuscript is significantly improved and we hope it is now suitable for publication in [Journal Name].
Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer's comment. All changes in the revised manuscript are indicated in [red text / tracked changes / a separate document].
We remain available to answer any further questions.
Sincerely, [Corresponding Author]
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 199 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0bb67756cfc3
peer-review-response is a skill published in the GitHub repository muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,150 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
thesis-control
Use when AI-assisted thesis or manuscript edits risk claim drift, scope creep, loss of intended use, experiment-role promotion, or repeated revisions that fail to converge; provides author-intent control, lightweight or strict contracts, drift audits, revision escalation, and human gates.
argument-governance
Build and audit the manuscript or research-project argument system across intended use, gaps, claims, data, results, experiment roles, contributions, innovation evidence, limitations, and contribution focus. Use when a paper, thesis chapter, review article, or research project needs an explicit argument map…
manuscript-reframe
Reframe report-like academic drafts into paper-form scientific arguments while preserving or explicitly renegotiating author intent; requires an approved old-versus-proposed spine, evidence and argument baselines, analysis-role control, and post-edit drift review.
audit
Check thesis chapters for consistency before submission — contradictory numbers, terminology drift, and broken cross-references.
self-review
Review the user's own manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, rebuttal, or release packet with clean-room anti-contamination controls and, when needed, an unfamiliar-reader comprehension gate. Use for internal review, readiness checks, reviewer simulation, or claim-evidence self-audit where prior chat memory and unstated…
evidence-review
Build evidence-controlled literature reviews and gap maps with source-status labels, claim registers, citation-role plans, traceability tables, and overclaim audits. Use when drafting or auditing review papers, thesis literature reviews, scoping reviews, or evidence syntheses where adjacent-domain evidence, candidate…