amanthro-rebuttal — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited amanthro-rebuttal (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
An AA revise-and-resubmit is the normal route to acceptance — treat it as an invitation, not a near miss. But the paper still must satisfy expert, sometimes cross-subfield reviewers and the editor. The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while protecting the four-field contribution and the integrity of the ethnography and ethics.
adjudicates among reviewers. Solve those first and headline them in the cover note.
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance, even under an ethics of care.
or push back respectfully with a reason (ethnographic evidence, theoretical logic, or ethics). A well-argued disagreement is respected more than a hollow concession that flattens the argument.
want opposite things, choose a principled path, explain the tradeoff, and answer each in that tradition's idiom (AA's four-field pluralism).
that dilute the four-field claim — and never add detail that would de-anonymize or endanger interlocutors to satisfy a reviewer (see amanthro-transparency-and-data).
constructive, and a gracious, substantive letter helps.
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/figure number where the revision appears].Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly.
| Comment signal | Who owns the call | Default move in the response |
|---|---|---|
| Editor flags it as decisive | editor | solve first, headline it in the cover note |
| Two reviewers want opposite things (often cross-subfield) | editor | pick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly |
| Reviewer asks for more identifying detail about interlocutors | author | decline on ethics grounds; explain the consent/harm constraint |
| Reviewer wants the case generalized beyond its scope | author | add scope conditions; resist over-claiming |
| Reviewer disputes a method across traditions | author | answer on that tradition's own terms (four-field pluralism) |
A hypothetical R&R draws three reviews. The editor names two decisive points (four-field significance and an ethics question about a photograph). R1 (sociocultural) wants more interlocutor detail; R2 (linguistic) wants a tighter discourse analysis. The disciplined letter opens with a three-sentence summary, addresses significance and the photograph first (replacing the image with a consented, anonymized alternative), then reconciles R1/R2 by deepening the discourse analysis while declining the request for identifying detail on consent grounds — stated plainly. Of 27 comments, 27 receive a quoted response; 20 conceded with a location, 7 rebutted with a reason. (Counts illustrative.)
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-subfield conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution + ethics protected】no dilution, no de-anonymization? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Research Exchange../../resources/official-source-map.md — decision categories, ethics-of-care review culture~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.