95 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
95 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
# `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.
|