curranthro-rebuttal — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited curranthro-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.
CA gives you two response tasks, and they are not the same. Before acceptance, you may face a normal revise-and-resubmit — a private point-by-point letter to referees and the editor. After a Major Article is accepted, you face the distinctive CA✩ Reply: a public, signed response to the international Comments that will be printed alongside your article and its commentators. The Reply is not an R&R — it is a published piece of scholarship in its own right. Diagnose which task you are in, then use the matching playbook.
cover note.
reads as non-compliance.
respectfully with a reason (ethnographic evidence, theoretical logic, or ethics).
tradition's idiom.
interlocutors to satisfy a reviewer (see curranthro-transparency-and-data).
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/figure number where the revision appears].This is the signature CA task. The Comments are not gatekeeping — the article is already accepted — so the Reply's job is different: advance the debate in public while defending the core argument.
it carries your name and stands beside the Comments permanently.
line-by-line. Name the genuine disagreements and the productive extensions.
your standing; the format rewards intellectual generosity, not defensiveness.
scope conditions, clarify the concept, and answer the strongest critiques head-on.
peers in a worldwide conversation, including those who write from the communities you study.
exposing protected people or heritage (see curranthro-transparency-and-data).
the article; confirm the current limit with the editors.
| Comment signal | Task | Default move |
|---|---|---|
| Editor flags it as decisive (pre-acceptance) | A (R&R) | solve first; headline in the cover note |
| Two referees want opposite things | A (R&R) | pick a principled path; explain the tradeoff openly |
| A commentator sharpens your concept (post-acceptance) | B (CA✩ Reply) | concede generously; fold the refinement into scope conditions |
| A commentator attacks the core intervention | B (CA✩ Reply) | defend head-on with evidence/logic; do not flinch |
| Any comment asks for de-anonymizing detail | A or B | decline on ethics grounds; explain the consent/harm constraint |
【Task】A: R&R letter / B: CA✩ Reply to published Comments
【Decisive points / themes】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every comment (A) or every theme (B) engaged? [Y/N]
【Concede vs defend】each tagged with evidence + (A) change location / (B) how it advances the debate
【Cross-subfield / international conflicts】reconciled and explained? [Y/N]
【Contribution + ethics protected】no dilution, no de-anonymization (esp. public Reply)? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager (A) / submit the CA✩ Reply to the editors (B)../../resources/official-source-map.md — CA✩ Treatment, decision categories, copyright assignment~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.