apsr-rebuttal — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited apsr-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 APSR R&R is a strong signal — it is "reserved for papers very close to publishable quality." But publication generally needs strong support from all or nearly all reviewers, and the call is the editor's discretion. So the response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent.
those first and foremost; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
new text/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, or evidence). Editors respect a well-argued disagreement more than a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Don't silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
general-significance claim that earned the R&R. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
reproducibility package** so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see apsr-transparency-and-data-policy).
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end the per-comment entries with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of general significance? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial ManagerAt the APSA/Cambridge flagship, publication generally needs near-unanimous reviewer support and the editor adjudicates, so triage each comment by who must be satisfied and what the comment threatens.
| 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 | editor | pick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly |
| Reviewer asks for an analysis that would change the claim | author + editor | run it, then defend or re-scope the contribution honestly |
| Reviewer wants the result generalized beyond design | author | add scope conditions; resist over-claiming |
| Reviewer disputes a methodological choice across traditions | author | answer on that tradition's own terms (pluralism) |
A hypothetical R&R draws four reviews. The editor's letter names two decisive points (identification and general significance). R2 wants the formal model cut; R4 wants it expanded. The disciplined letter opens with a three-sentence summary to the editor, addresses identification and significance first with new text/table locations, then reconciles R2/R4 by keeping a compact model in the main text and moving derivations to the appendix — stating the tradeoff explicitly rather than silently siding with one reviewer. Of 31 total comments, 31 receive a quoted response; 22 are conceded with a change location, 9 are rebutted with a reason. (Counts illustrative.)
framing; defend scope conditions instead of retreating to a subfield result.
revised exhibit re-runs; the editorial office checks this before publication.
why you respectfully disagree.
hollow concession; editors at a generalist venue reward a coherent contribution.
weighs reviewers rather than counting votes.
objection is answered in that tradition's idiom, not deflected.
journal's current peer-review guidelines before quoting them in the letter.
../../resources/official-source-map.md — R&R/decision categories and editor-discretion policy~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.