first commit

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

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Chinese author alignment
+
+Use this file when the user writes in Chinese, provides Chinese author notes, or asks for
+`中文核对`, `中英对照`, `审稿意见回复`, `逐点回复`, `修回信`, `大修回复`, or `小修回复`.
+
+## Default behavior
+
+- Accept Chinese reviewer summaries, author notes, manuscript-change notes, and mixed Chinese-English inputs.
+- Draft the final point-by-point response letter in English unless the user explicitly asks for Chinese only.
+- Keep a short `中文核对` section for unresolved author actions when it helps the author act.
+- Translate intent, not literal wording.
+- Convert vague Chinese notes into concrete response evidence requirements.
+
+## Common Chinese note conversions
+
+| Chinese note | Problem | Better handling |
+|---|---|---|
+| `我们已经改了` | Too vague | Ask what changed, where it appears, and whether revised text is available |
+| `按审稿人意见修改` | No action mapping | Convert to `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED` until action and location are known |
+| `我们补了实验` | Missing evidence | Request experiment name, conditions, replicate/sample details, result summary, and figure/table location |
+| `我们补了分析` | Missing analysis detail | Request analysis method, data source, key result, statistical output, and manuscript location |
+| `这个问题不重要` | Defensive and unsupported | Reframe as scope, evidence, or claim-boundary reasoning if scientifically justified |
+| `由于时间原因没做` | High-risk excuse | Replace with study-design or scope boundary only if true; otherwise flag risk |
+| `审稿人误解了` | Accusatory | Reframe as manuscript clarity issue and add clarification |
+| `详见正文` | Not traceable | Require section, page, line, figure, table, or supplement |
+| `我们认为足够了` | Unsupported sufficiency claim | Explain what evidence addresses the concern or mark remaining limitation |
+
+## Chinese confirmation section
+
+Use concise Chinese action notes:
+
+```text
+中文核对
+- R1.1: 请补充验证分析的主要结果、样本量或数据集规模，以及 Fig. 5 对应的正文位置。
+- R1.2: 请确认统计检验名称、重复单位、样本量和多重检验校正方法。
+- R2.1: 目前不能声称已完成动物验证；建议改为范围说明 + Discussion limitation。
+```
+
+## Bilingual drafting pattern
+
+When the user supplies Chinese notes:
+
+1. Preserve reviewer comments in their supplied language unless asked to translate.
+2. Build the tracker using English action labels.
+3. Draft the response letter in polished English.
+4. Add `中文核对` only for decisions, missing facts, and high-risk issues.
+
+## Tone correction examples
+
+Chinese author note:
+
+```text
+审稿人没有理解我们的方法。
+```
+
+Response stance:
+
+```text
+We agree that the original Methods description did not make this distinction sufficiently clear.
+We have revised the Methods to clarify [specific distinction and location].
+```
+
+Chinese author note:
+
+```text
+这个实验超出了我们的能力。
+```
+
+Response stance:
+
+```text
+We agree that this experiment would provide an additional test of [claim]. However, it would require
+[new cohort/system/longitudinal design], which is outside the scope of the present study. We have
+therefore softened the claim and added a limitation in [location].
+```