first commit

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

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# Response structure
+
+Use this file when drafting or auditing the output shape of a reviewer response package.
+
+## Default package
+
+Return the response in this order unless the user asks for another format:
+
+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.
+
+## Response strategy summary
+
+Keep this short and editor-readable:
+
+```text
+Response strategy summary
+- Decision type: Major revision
+- Task mode: draft
+- Package readiness: draft_with_placeholders
+- Overall posture: Cooperative, evidence-forward, non-defensive
+- Major risks: missing validation results; unclear replicate definition
+- Suggested ordering: address editor first, then Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 in full
+```
+
+Decision types:
+
+- `minor revision`
+- `major revision`
+- `revise-and-resubmit`
+- `transfer after review`
+- `appeal-like case` routed outside the default workflow
+- `unclear` when the decision type is not supplied
+
+Task modes:
+
+- `draft`
+- `audit`
+- `revise`
+- `triage-only`
+- `appeal-like`
+
+Package readiness:
+
+- `ready_to_submit`: no unresolved placeholders or missing facts remain.
+- `draft_with_placeholders`: usable draft, but visible placeholders remain.
+- `needs_author_input`: final text depends on facts the author has not supplied.
+- `blocked`: credible revision response is blocked by ethics, compliance, data integrity, central evidence, or appeal-like routing.
+
+## Comment-response tracker
+
+Use a compact table:
+
+```markdown
+| ID | Reviewer concern | Type | Severity | Proposed action | Readiness | Missing author input |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| R1.1 | Missing validation cohort | Evidence / validation | Major | ACCEPT_ANALYSIS | needs_author_input | Need result summary and manuscript location |
+```
+
+Keep reviewer concern text short in the tracker. Preserve the full wording in the letter when available.
+Use `E.1`, `E.2`, etc. for editor instructions and list them before reviewer comments.
+
+## Point-by-point letter anatomy
+
+Use this default structure:
+
+```markdown
+Dear Editor and Reviewers,
+
+We thank the editor and reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript.
+We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised and provide a point-by-point response below.
+
+## Response to Reviewer 1
+
+**Reviewer comment R1.1**
+[Full reviewer comment preserved here.]
+
+**Response**
+We thank the reviewer for raising this point. [Direct answer.]
+To address this concern, we have [specific action]. This change appears in [section/page/line/figure].
+[If needed: The remaining limitation is now stated in [location].]
+```
+
+## Manuscript change checklist
+
+List manuscript actions, not polite intentions:
+
+```text
+Manuscript change checklist
+- R1.1: Add validation result summary to Results and cite Fig. 5.
+- R1.2: Clarify replicate definition in Methods.
+- R2.1: Soften causal claim in Abstract and Discussion.
+```
+
+## Missing information / risk flags
+
+Use specific requests:
+
+```text
+Missing information / risk flags
+- R1.1: Need validation result direction and effect/performance summary before final wording.
+- R1.2: Need test name, replicate unit, sample size, and correction method.
+- R2.1: No line numbers supplied; using section names for now.
+```
+
+## Cover letter boundary
+
+Some journals ask for a revised manuscript, response to reviewers, and cover letter. This MVP does
+not generate cover letters. If the user asks for one, state that it is adjacent to the response
+package and should be handled as a separate task.