| name | nature-response |
| description | Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 reviewer. Also trigger on general peer-review response needs during academic writing/revision even without the word "Nature", such as replying to reviewers for any journal, writing a rebuttal/response letter, handling revision comments, and Chinese phrasings like 回复审稿人、审稿回复、返修、 修改稿回复、写rebuttal、回应审稿意见、应对审稿. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| status | Beta |
| author | Community contribution, refactored into static/dynamic layers |
Nature Reviewer Response — Router
This skill is split into two layers:
- A static layer under
static/ that holds versioned, reusable content fragments (the default stance and red lines, and the response workflow with output format).
- A dynamic layer (this file plus
manifest.yaml) that loads the core every time and reaches for the deeper response references only when a step needs them.
Do not try to apply the response logic from memory or from this router. Always load fragments from disk as described below.
Routing protocol
Follow these four steps every time the skill is invoked.
1. Load the manifest and the core layer
Read manifest.yaml. Then read every file listed under always_load:
static/core/stance.md — the editor-facing purpose, the default stance, the red lines, and the source hierarchy that apply to every response job.static/core/workflow.md — accepted inputs, the ten-step workflow, and the output package format.
2. No content axis — identify mode and language inline
Unlike nature-writing or nature-figure, nature-response has no fragment axis. Its variation is identified at runtime, not by loading different content bodies:
- task mode —
draft / audit / revise / triage-only / appeal-like.
- decision type — minor revision, major revision, revise-and-resubmit, transfer after review, or unclear.
- user language — if the user writes Chinese, also produce the 中文核对 block.
Use references/intake-and-routing.md to fix the task mode, minimum inputs, and readiness state before drafting. Route appeal-like cases separately; do not draft an appeal as the default path.
3. Run the workflow
Follow the ten-step workflow in core/workflow.md: identify mode and decision type, extract editor instructions (IDs E.1) then reviewer comments (R1.1, R2.1), classify each item, build a strategy summary, draft point-by-point responses from the preserved comments, map every claimed change to a manuscript location or an explicit placeholder, flag missing author input, run QA, and return the package with a readiness state.
Never invent experiments, citations, line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, editor instructions, or manuscript changes. Mark anything the author must supply as AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
4. Reach for references only when needed
The files under references/ are deep references, not defaults. Open them on demand per the references.on_demand table in the manifest — for example references/comment-taxonomy.md to classify comments, references/action-mapping.md for tracker fields, references/tone-and-stance.md for disagreement wording, references/difficult-cases.md for impossible experiments / conflicting reviewers / appeal-like cases, references/chinese-author-alignment.md for Chinese author notes, and references/qa-checklist.md before finalizing.
Why this split
- The static layer is versioned and reviewable; the core stays small for a normal response.
- The dynamic layer keeps each invocation cheap: the difficult-case, taxonomy, and QA depth load only when a step needs them.
- The router itself is short on purpose. Update fragments and references, not this file, when adding scope.
- This structure mirrors
nature-writing, nature-polishing, nature-reader, nature-paper2ppt, nature-figure, and nature-citation.
