Peer Review Response Drafter
PassAudited by ClawScan on May 1, 2026.
Overview
The skill appears aligned with drafting peer-review response letters, with only low-risk notes about user-directed local file handling and limited source provenance.
This skill looks appropriate for drafting peer-review responses. Treat reviewer comments and manuscript details as confidential, keep input/output files in intended locations, and carefully review the generated response for accuracy before submitting it.
Findings (2)
Artifact-based informational review of SKILL.md, metadata, install specs, static scan signals, and capability signals. ClawScan does not execute the skill or run runtime probes.
The skill may read reviewer-comment text from a local file and write a response letter to a local path chosen by the user.
The skill documents user-specified local input and output paths. This is expected for drafting from reviewer comments, but users should ensure the paths and files are intended.
`--input-file` ... Path to reviewer comments file ... `--output` ... Output file path for response letter
Use only intended files, avoid overwriting important documents, and review the generated letter before submission.
Users have less external context for verifying where the script came from or how it is maintained.
The artifact does not provide a public upstream source or homepage. This is not suspicious by itself, especially with no automatic install spec, but it limits provenance verification.
Source: unknown; Homepage: none
Review the local files before running them and install any dependencies only in a trusted environment.