| name | reviewer-response |
| description | Use when responding to paper reviews, rebuttal comments, or revision requests and you need a structured issue list, action plan, and concise response draft. |
Purpose
Turn reviewer comments into a controlled rebuttal or revision workflow.
When To Use
- writing a rebuttal after conference or journal review
- planning a response-to-reviewers letter for revision
- triaging many comments across several reviewers
- deciding which comments require experiments, clarifications, or text edits
Inputs
- reviewer comments or decision letter
- current manuscript state and change constraints
- available evidence, new analyses, or planned revisions
Outputs
- issue matrix grouped by reviewer and theme
- must-fix versus clarify-only breakdown
- response draft with concise claim-evidence-action structure
- revision checklist mapped back to comments
- list of comments that cannot be fully addressed and why
Workflow
- Normalize comments into atomic issues instead of long paragraphs.
- Classify each issue as correction, clarification, experiment, scope, or disagreement.
- Map each issue to evidence and to the concrete manuscript change required.
- Draft responses that are respectful, specific, and non-defensive.
- Check that every promise in the response has a real execution path.
Constraints
- do not answer emotionally or argue without evidence
- do not promise experiments you cannot realistically complete
- distinguish completed changes from planned future work
- keep each response aligned with one reviewer concern at a time
