amr-review-process — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited amr-review-process (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
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.
AMR uses a double-anonymous, multi-round, developmental review. "Developmental" is the operative word: the goal is to help promising theory papers become stronger, so reviews are detailed and the bar rises across rounds. Verify current specifics on the official page, but the durable shape is:
as a fresh submission); Major Revision (R&R); less often Minor Revision; rarely an immediate Accept.
The editor screens for fit and contribution before sending a paper out. Most common AMR desk rejects: (1) "this is an empirical paper"; (2) incremental theory; (3) a literature review with no original move; (4) construct proliferation (relabeling); (5) untestable-in-principle or tautological propositions; (6) poor fit/scope or anonymization failures.
| Signal in the letter | What it usually means | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| "Promising but the contribution is not yet clear" | Theory may be sound but under-differentiated | Re-run amr-contribution-framing |
| "Propositions are not well supported by the argument" | Logic gaps between premises and propositions | Re-run amr-data-analysis, then amr-theory-development |
| "Reads as a review of the literature" | No real theoretical move | Re-run amr-literature-positioning + amr-writing-style |
| "Constructs overlap existing ones" | Construct distinctiveness challenged | Re-run amr-theory-development (domain/distinction) |
| "Scope/level inconsistency" | Level-of-theory confusion | Re-run amr-methods (cross-level) |
| Editor highlights specific reviewer points as essential | The editor's priorities | Address these first and most fully |
framing tells you which issues are decision-critical.
mechanism, an undefended proposition) outranks wording.
the theory is wrong; others mean the prose hid a sound argument.
response (handled in amr-rebuttal).
【Decision type】Reject / Reject & Resubmit / Major (R&R) / Minor
【Editor's priorities】ranked list
【Comment triage】substance: [...] | presentation: [...]
【Skill mapping】comment → amr-* skill
【Reviewer conflicts】[...]
【Go / no-go】pursue revision? rationale
【Next step】amr-rebuttal~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.