cc-peer-review-revision
Use when responding to Cancer Cell (Cell Press) reviewer reports — planning new experiments, writing a point-by-point response, and calibrating claims for revision. It structures the rebuttal and revision; it does not run the experiments or design them from scratch.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cc-peer-review-revision --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# Peer Review & Revision (cc-peer-review-revision) ## When to trigger - A decision letter with reviewer reports has arrived (major/minor revision) - You must triage requested experiments vs. textual changes - Reviewers ask for additional in vivo / human validation or rigor fixes - A consultative / cross-referee comment requires reconciling reviews ## Cell Press review context Cancer Cell uses editorial assessment plus external peer review, and Cell Press can run **consultative (cross-referee) review** where reviewers see each other's comments. Practical implications: - Reviewers may converge on shared concerns — address the **cross-cutting** issue, not just each bullet. - The editor's letter signals which points are **essential** vs. optional; prioritize those. - New experiments that strengthen orthogonal validation (in vivo / human) carry the most weight. ## Triage every comment | Reviewer ask | Response mode | |--------------|---------------| | "Does this hold in vivo / in patients?" | New experiment (highest priority) — plan via `cc-study-design` | | "Cell line unauthenticated / antibody not validated" | Rigor fix — `cc-reporting-standards` | | "n unclear / pseudo-replication /
- When to trigger
- Cell Press review context
- Triage every comment
- Point-by-point response structure
- Revision discipline
- Worked micro-example: a point-by-point entry
- Framing pushback that survives consultative review
- Cancer Cell revision failure modes
- Checklist
- Anti-patterns
- Output format
What does the cc-peer-review-revision skill do?
Use when responding to Cancer Cell (Cell Press) reviewer reports — planning new experiments, writing a point-by-point response, and calibrating claims for revision. It structures the rebuttal and revision; it does not run the experiments or design them from scratch.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cc-peer-review-revision --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.