asr-rebuttal — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited asr-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 ASR R&R is the normal road to publication for a promising paper — and it usually asks for substantial revision. Reviewers often come from different methodological traditions, so the response letter must satisfy a skeptic of your method without breaking the paper, while the editor adjudicates.
those first; the editor adjudicates conflicts among reviewers.
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
new text/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, or evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
reviewer pull in opposite directions, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor — don't silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
dilute the broad-significance claim or the portable mechanism that earned the R&R.
tables/figures stay grounded (see asr-data-and-transparency).
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 each entry with the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly.
ASR R&Rs are substantial and the panel often crosses traditions, so sort every comment before drafting. The editors adjudicate; the letter's job is to make adjudication easy.
| Comment type | Default response |
|---|---|
| Editor's decisive point | do it; never argue these away |
| Result you can produce | run it; report honestly even if mixed |
| Cross-method standard | meet it on its own terms |
| Request that dilutes significance | rebut respectfully with a reason |
A neighborhood-effects paper gets an R&R where R1 (quant) wants a sibling fixed-effects check and R2 (ethnographic) doubts the mechanism is social rather than selection.
R1: "Add within-family comparison."
Response: Sibling FE (Table 4); effect attenuates 0.31→0.22 SD, still significant (CI 0.09–0.35).
R2: "Could be selection, not a social process."
Response: Placebo on pre-move outcomes (null, CI −0.04–0.06) + 6 excerpts illustrating the
mechanism. Change: §5.3, Appendix B.The letter concedes where evidence warrants and protects the contribution by showing the mechanism survives the cross-method probe.
beats a thank-you.
points first converts an R&R.
capitulation that weakens the argument is worse.
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-method conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of broad significance? [Y/N]
【Masking + documentation updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Sage Track../../resources/official-source-map.md — ASR review model and ethics~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.