ieee-response-e39c5e — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ieee-response-e39c5e (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.
Use this skill to turn a set of reviews into a disciplined response letter, and to write the cover letter that frames a submission for the editor. The response letter is a contract: each reply states what changed and where to find it.
ignored — even the ones you disagree with.
promise with no anchor reads as evasion.
with evidence, not insistence — but concede readily when the reviewer is right.
citations you did not add. If a request needs work not yet done, mark it [AUTHOR INPUT NEEDED] and list it — never paper over it.
in the revised PDF.
| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| references/response-structure.md | Building the point-by-point letter: comment IDs, the triage/action model, reply templates, agree/disagree/defer patterns, traceability, tone |
| references/cover-letter.md | Writing the cover letter for a new or revised submission: structure, contribution framing, editor-facing claims, required statements |
ACCEPT_TEXT reviewer is right → make the change, quote it in the reply
SOFTEN_CLAIM reviewer found an overclaim → narrow the wording, point to the new sentence
ADD_EVIDENCE needs an experiment/analysis → run it (ieee-experiments) or mark AUTHOR INPUT NEEDED
CLARIFY a misunderstanding → fix the text that misled, then explain (the fault is usually the writing)
DISAGREE reviewer is mistaken → rebut with evidence, respectfully, and still add a clarifying line
DEFER out of scope / future work → acknowledge, justify briefly, note in limitationsDisagreement is legitimate but expensive: every DISAGREE should still produce a small text change so the reviewer sees they were heard.
(R1.1, R1.2, ...). One concern per ID, even if buried mid-paragraph.
results via ieee-experiments. The reply describes work that exists.
the reviewer's words quoted above your response.
claim; tone consistent.
reviewers, and frames fit and contribution.
Response letter: per-reviewer, numbered, quoted comment + reply (thank → change → location).Cover letter: editor-facing, framing contribution and fit (and, for revisions, the headlinechanges).
Coverage check: table of Comment ID → action → anchor in manuscript → status.Open items: anything marked [AUTHOR INPUT NEEDED] the user must still supply.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.