Menu
Use when authors must interpret real reviewer comments, decide how to revise a humanities manuscript, and produce a transparent point-by-point response grounded in actual changes.
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
Use when citations, quotations, page numbers, bibliography entries, or source-supported claims must be checked for existence, metadata accuracy, textual fidelity, and claim–source fit.
Use when a manuscript contains recurring concepts, translations, abbreviations, proper names, or near-synonyms whose meanings and forms must remain stable across the argument.
Use when a humanities researcher needs to transform verified sources into a structured scholarly conversation rather than a chronological list of summaries.
Use when a humanities researcher has a broad topic, intuition, corpus, or problem but does not yet have a precise, contestable, and researchable question.
Use when a humanities argument depends on a concept whose history, competing definitions, translations, or boundaries must be reconstructed before the concept can support new claims.
Use when an interpretation must be grounded in specific textual, visual, rhetorical, formal, interface, archival, performative, or material features rather than thematic summary or theoretical labeling.
| name | responding-to-peer-review |
| description | Use when authors must interpret real reviewer comments, decide how to revise a humanities manuscript, and produce a transparent point-by-point response grounded in actual changes. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| language | en |
| license | MIT |
Convert reviewer reports into a traceable revision process. This skill separates what the reviewer explicitly requested from what the author infers, classifies the scholarly issue behind each comment, and links every response to an actual manuscript change or a reasoned decision not to change.
The goal is neither automatic compliance nor rhetorical resistance. It is accountable revision.
Accepts authentic reviewer or editor comments, the submitted manuscript, revision files, journal instructions, prior audit reports, and author decisions.
Requires the exact comments and enough manuscript context to locate the issue. A point-by-point response requires either completed revisions or an explicit planned-action status.
Produces normalized ReviewerComment and RevisionAction records, a comment classification, response strategy, manuscript change log, point-by-point response draft, unresolved conflicts, and a peer-review-response gate report.
May produce a revision plan, editor cover note, disagreement rationale, grouped response to overlapping comments, or requests for clarification.
Fails when comments are invented, reviewer identities or motives are guessed, claimed revisions do not exist, contradictory reviewer requests remain unresolved without an editor decision, or the author asks to conceal noncompliance.
Guarantees that each reviewer comment is accounted for and connected to a response status, manuscript location, and evidence of change or reasoned non-change.
Does not guarantee reviewer satisfaction, acceptance, correct interpretation of ambiguous comments, or resolution of conflicting editorial demands.
Use after receiving formal reviewer or editor reports, during revision planning, while drafting the response letter, and before resubmission to verify that claimed changes are present.
Do not simulate peer review with this skill. Use reviewing-manuscript or stress-testing-argument for internal review. This skill requires real comments or clearly labeled hypothetical training material.
Provide:
Redact personal data if necessary, but do not paraphrase away the substance of the comments before classification.
Assign a stable ID such as R1-C3. Preserve the original wording. Separate bundled comments into sub-items while retaining their parent comment. Distinguish editor instructions from reviewer suggestions.
Classify each item as one or more of:
This classification determines the appropriate skill and evidence needed.
Record:
Do not attribute hostility, ideology, incompetence, or hidden motives.
Evaluate the comment against the manuscript. Use one response strategy:
“Reviewer is wrong” is not a sufficient strategy. A disagreement must identify the manuscript evidence, relevant source, scope, or methodological reason.
Some comments affect the thesis, scope, or terminology and therefore change responses to later comments. Build a revision sequence before editing. Route issues to appropriate skills:
scope -> concepts -> evidence -> argument -> structure -> citations -> terminology -> style
Merge overlapping comments carefully, but answer each reviewer ID separately in the response letter.
For each action record:
Do not say “revised as suggested” until the change is present in the current file.
A strong response normally contains:
Keep tone professional and specific. Avoid defensive biography, speculation about the reviewer, or claims that the change “fully resolves” the issue unless verified.
When not following a recommendation:
A reasoned non-change is preferable to cosmetic compliance that damages the argument.
Check every page, section, table, note, and reference cited in the response. Ensure numbering matches the revised file. Confirm that deleted passages are not still described as revised and that new sources appear in the bibliography.
Return PASS when every comment is accounted for, all claimed changes are verified, and no blocking conflict remains. Use CONDITIONAL PASS when an editor decision or specialist check remains but is explicitly documented. Return FAIL when comments are omitted, changes are falsely claimed, or central concerns remain unaddressed.
Stop and request action when:
Completion requires:
Do not invent reviewer comments, editorial preferences, page locations, revisions, sources, acceptance probabilities, or reviewer motives. Do not fabricate language such as “we have added extensive discussion” when only a sentence changed. Do not create supporting citations solely to appease a reviewer without checking relevance.
When the current manuscript file cannot be inspected, label actions planned, not completed or verified.
Use templates/reviewer-response.md. For each comment include:
Comment ID:
Original comment:
Issue classification:
Explicit request:
Inferred concern:
Response strategy:
Manuscript action:
Location:
Verification status:
Response text:
Remaining issue:
Gate: Peer Review Response
Status: PASS | CONDITIONAL PASS | FAIL
Evidence checked:
Blocking issues:
Non-blocking risks:
Researcher decisions required:
Required next action:
Next skill:
Build a point-by-point response to these real reports. Preserve each comment, distinguish planned from verified changes, and flag the two conflicting requests for an editor decision.
Invent a persuasive response saying we made all requested changes, even though the revised manuscript is not available.
The bad invocation requires false claims and MUST be refused.
scoping-argument-boundary for scope conflicts.stress-testing-argument for substantive objections.auditing-citations for requested sources and quotation checks.checking-terminology-consistency after conceptual revisions.verifying-before-submission before resubmission.Reviewer comments may be ambiguous, inconsistent, or based on disciplinary assumptions not fully stated. The skill cannot know reviewer intentions or guarantee acceptance. Editors retain authority over conflicting requests, and authors retain responsibility for intellectual decisions and accurate claims about revisions.