first commit

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# `nature-response` skill
+
+A reviewer-response skill for drafting, auditing, and revising point-by-point response
+letters for Nature-family and high-impact journal manuscript revisions.
+
+This skill is bilingual-aware. It accepts Chinese or English reviewer comments, editor
+letters, author notes, and draft rebuttals, then prepares an English response package with
+Chinese author confirmation notes when useful.
+
+## What it does
+
+- splits reviewer comments into stable IDs such as `R1.1`, `R1.2`, and `R2.1`
+- classifies each concern by type, severity, action, evidence need, and risk
+- creates a response strategy summary before drafting prose
+- routes requests into drafting, auditing, revising, triage-only, or appeal-like handling
+- assigns editor instruction IDs such as `E.1` before reviewer IDs when the decision letter includes editor instructions
+- drafts an editor-readable point-by-point response letter
+- maps each response to a manuscript action, location, or missing-information flag
+- rewrites defensive or vague author notes into professional response language
+- handles difficult cases such as out-of-scope experiments, factual reviewer errors, conflicting reviewers, statistical critiques, and compliance concerns
+- flags missing experiments, analyses, line numbers, citations, figure panels, and manuscript changes instead of inventing them
+
+## When to use
+
+- preparing a Nature, Nature Portfolio, Springer Nature, or similar high-impact journal revision
+- responding to major or minor revision comments
+- turning reviewer comments into a manuscript change checklist
+- auditing a draft rebuttal for missing responses, tone problems, or unsupported claims
+- converting Chinese author notes into submission-ready English point-by-point replies
+- deciding how to respectfully disagree with a reviewer or explain a scope boundary
+
+## What it returns
+
+Unless the user asks for another format, the skill returns:
+
+1. response strategy summary
+2. comment-response tracker
+3. draft point-by-point response letter
+4. manuscript change checklist
+5. missing information / risk flags
+6. Chinese confirmation notes when the user writes in Chinese
+
+## Core rules
+
+- Preserve reviewer comments faithfully before responding.
+- Answer every concern, cross-reference it, or mark it unresolved.
+- Map every response to a concrete action such as `ACCEPT_TEXT`, `ACCEPT_ANALYSIS`, `SOFTEN_CLAIM`, `DISAGREE`, or `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
+- Do not invent experiments, analyses, citations, line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, reviewer identities, editor instructions, or manuscript changes.
+- Use cooperative, evidence-forward, non-defensive language.
+- Treat the response letter as an editor-facing verification document, not a politeness exercise.
+
+## Source hierarchy
+
+- Target journal instructions and decision-letter requirements.
+- Nature / Nature Portfolio / Springer Nature revision and peer-review process guidance.
+- Springer Nature editorial advice on rebuttal letters.
+- Local manuscript facts supplied by the author.
+
+The source basis is summarized in `references/source-basis.md` with URLs, rule summaries, and source-type labels.
+
+## File structure
+
+```text
+nature-response/
+├── README.md
+├── SKILL.md
+├── references/
+│   ├── source-basis.md
+│   ├── response-structure.md
+│   ├── comment-taxonomy.md
+│   ├── action-mapping.md
+│   ├── tone-and-stance.md
+│   ├── chinese-author-alignment.md
+│   ├── difficult-cases.md
+│   ├── intake-and-routing.md
+│   └── qa-checklist.md
+├── tests/
+    ├── conflicting-reviewers.md
+    ├── defensive-draft-audit.md
+    ├── evaluation-summary.md
+    ├── minor-revision.md
+    ├── major-revision-missing-evidence.md
+    ├── impossible-experiment.md
+    └── rubric.md
+└── examples/
+    ├── conflicting-reviewers.md
+    ├── major-revision-with-missing-evidence.md
+    └── minor-revision.md
+```
+
+## Status
+
+Beta. The behavior is defined by synthetic Markdown fixtures and examples. The skill should remain
+below Stable until it has been validated on real anonymized revision packages with author permission.