first commit

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

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# QA checklist
+
+Use this checklist before finalizing a response package or when auditing an existing draft.
+
+## Completeness
+
+- Every reviewer comment has a stable ID.
+- Every ID has a response or an explicit unresolved flag.
+- No reviewer comment is paraphrased in a way that changes meaning.
+- Repeated concerns are cross-referenced rather than ignored.
+- No major concern is answered only with thanks.
+- Editor-specific instructions are addressed before reviewer comments when supplied.
+
+## Traceability
+
+- Every claimed revision has a manuscript location or visible placeholder.
+- Every new figure, table, panel, supplement, or citation is named only if supplied.
+- Every new experiment or analysis has enough supplied description to be credible.
+- Line numbers are not invented; use section names if line numbers are unavailable.
+- Reviewer comments and response IDs match throughout tracker, letter, and checklist.
+
+## Factuality
+
+- No invented data.
+- No invented p-values, confidence intervals, effect sizes, sample sizes, or replicate counts.
+- No invented DOI, citation metadata, accession number, repository record, or figure panel.
+- No invented reviewer identity or editor instruction.
+- No unsupported claim that an experiment, analysis, or manuscript revision was performed.
+- Unsupported claims are softened or flagged.
+
+## Tone
+
+- No accusations of reviewer incompetence, bias, or misunderstanding unless the user is explicitly preparing an appeal and supplies evidence.
+- No excessive apologies.
+- No repetitive empty thanks.
+- Disagreement is evidence-based and narrow.
+- Study limitations are acknowledged cleanly.
+- Time, money, convenience, or ability is not the primary stated reason for not doing requested work.
+
+## Actionability
+
+- Missing author inputs are concrete.
+- High-risk and blocking items appear before the final letter or in a visible risk section.
+- The manuscript change checklist tells the author which section, figure, table, supplement, or claim needs attention.
+- Partial responses state what was addressed and what remains unresolved.
+
+## Final output gate
+
+Before returning final text, ask:
+
+- Can an editor verify every response against a manuscript change, supplied evidence, or explicit limitation?
+- Would the response remain professional if included in a transparent peer review file?
+- Are all placeholders visible enough that the author cannot accidentally submit fabricated compliance?
+- Is the package readiness honestly labelled as `ready_to_submit`, `draft_with_placeholders`, `needs_author_input`, or `blocked`?
+- If any item is `draft_with_placeholders`, `needs_author_input`, or `blocked`, the package must not be labelled `ready_to_submit`.
+
+## Readiness gate
+
+Use these labels consistently:
+
+- `ready_to_submit`: all comments are answered with supplied actions and traceable locations.
+- `draft_with_placeholders`: draft text exists, but visible placeholders or missing locations remain.
+- `needs_author_input`: the author must provide facts before final response wording is credible.
+- `blocked`: a compliance, integrity, central-evidence, or appeal-like issue prevents normal final response drafting.