Menu
Draft author responses for each confirmed issue. Writes response.json next to each issue (append-only).
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
| name | draft-responses |
| description | Draft author responses for each confirmed issue. Writes response.json next to each issue (append-only). |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Bash, Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Agent |
Run from the repo root. Requires severity-voted issues from Phase 4. The paper source is in this same repo.
Scan for directories that have issue.json, investigation.json (confirmed), and votes.json but do NOT yet have response.json. Use .review/dedup.json to process only canonical issues. Skip issues whose votes.json has "consensus": "not_an_issue".
Read issue.json, investigation.json, and votes.json. Then, with full access to the repo, draft response options from the author's perspective:
Write response.json next to the other files in the issue directory:
{
"recommended_action": "fix|rebut|acknowledge",
"response_draft": "<draft text the author could use>",
"manuscript_changes": [
{"file": "<path>", "line": <N>, "description": "<what to change>"}
],
"created_at": "<ISO timestamp>"
}
For fixes, be specific — describe the actual text change. For rebuttals, write a response-letter paragraph. For acknowledgments, draft a sentence for the limitations section.
Do NOT modify issue.json, investigation.json, or votes.json.
git add -A
git commit -m "review: draft responses — <N> fix, <N> rebut, <N> acknowledge"
Report: for each issue, the recommended action and a one-line summary.
Phase 6 — Generate the REVIEW.md report by walking the append-only review tree. Optionally create GitHub Issues.
Add a custom issue spotter for the paper review. Describe what to look for and this will create the spotter file.
Phase 1 — Run the chunks x issue_spotters cross-product to find candidate issues. Uses edsl for parallel LLM review.
Phase 3 — Deduplicate confirmed issues by writing a dedup.json mapping file. No files are moved or modified.
One-shot holistic referee review of the full paper. Issues are written to .review/holistic/ as append-only issue.json files.
Phase 2 — Investigate candidate issues. Writes investigation.json next to each issue.json with evidence and a confirm/reject verdict.