jet-rebuttal — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited jet-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.
Because review is single-blind, referees may know your prior work — engage substance, not identity.
proof, an assumption doing more work than acknowledged, a claimed "general" result that secretly needs finiteness/continuity/convexity, or a counterexample to a stated proposition.
and necessity-of-assumption questions, then exposition.
stated, narrow the claim to what the proof supports and say so plainly. Never paper over a hole.
a generalization (X weakened, result survives). Add the weaker statement as the new main result where credible.
(thm-restate), and tighten notation.
theorem number** in the revised .tex that implements the change.
| Report claim | Stakes | First move | Letter posture |
|---|---|---|---|
| "The proof of Lemma k has a gap" | paper-sinking if real | re-derive the step from scratch; do not pattern-match the old argument | corrected argument in full, or a narrowed claim |
| "Here is a counterexample to Proposition j" | decisive either way | verify it against every numbered assumption | if valid: thank, repair or narrow; if it violates an assumption: show which line fails |
| "Is Assumption A2 necessary?" | scope of the contribution | attempt the weakening; else construct the dropping-A2 example | a new Example or a generalized theorem |
| "This follows from [known theorem]" | originality | write out the claimed reduction or its failure point | the precise reason the known theorem does not apply |
| "Proofs are unreadable" | acceptance friction | restate theorems, add a lemma roadmap, offload to appendix | a table mapping moved material to new locations |
counterexamples violate a regularity condition, and showing which line fails ends the issue.
breaks; everything before that line survives.
and the introduction), or restate the result at the strength the proof actually delivers.
Editor summary (≤1 page, theorem-level):
Theorem 1 unchanged; Proposition 2 narrowed (now requires A4 — see R1.3);
new Example 3 shows A2 cannot be dropped (R2.1); Appendix C rewritten for readability.
Per referee, per point:
[R1.3] "<verbatim comment>"
→ Type: correctness
→ Response: corrected the Lemma 2 step; the missing case is handled by new eq. (12)
→ Location: §4.2 and Appendix B.1; flagged in the attached latexdiff
Attachments: revised .tex, latexdiff PDF, this letter.【Referee N · Comment k】<verbatim>
→ Type: correctness | generality/necessity | exposition
→ Response: <corrected proof / counterexample / narrowed claim>
→ Change at: §x / Prop y / eq (z) in revised .tex
【Net effect】result strengthened / scope clarified / claim narrowed~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.