reviewer-response-pack

name	reviewer-response-pack
description	Use when the user needs to answer reviewer comments, build a response matrix, classify revision requests, audit a response letter, verify a revised manuscript against review comments, or prepare a revise-and-resubmit package.

Reviewer Response Pack

Use this skill after peer-review feedback arrives. It is not a generic paper review skill. Its job is to preserve each editor/reviewer concern, map it to real manuscript action or unresolved author input, and produce an auditable response package.

Required Contract

Before drafting, read:

• <VELA_RUNTIME_ROOT>/skills/catalog/peer_review_workflow.json
• <VELA_RUNTIME_ROOT>/skills/catalog/publication_style_rules.json
• <VELA_RUNTIME_ROOT>/skills/catalog/writing_quality_rules.json

Use the revision_response_review mode in peer_review_workflow.json.

Input Readiness

Accepted inputs:

• editor decision letter
• reviewer comments
• response draft
• revised manuscript
• tracked-change summary
• author notes
• figure/table/supplement change list
• target journal or submission system constraints

If reviewer boundaries, comment segmentation, or manuscript version is unclear, flag it. Do not invent reviewer structure.

Workflow

1. Identify mode:
   • triage-only: classify comments and blockers
   • draft: build response letter from supplied facts
   • audit: check an existing response draft
   • revise: revise the response package
   • verification-review: verify whether claimed changes actually appear in the revised manuscript
2. Extract editor instructions first and assign IDs such as E.1; then split reviewer comments as R1.1, R1.2, R2.1.
3. Preserve each comment's meaning before responding.
4. Classify each item:
   • severity: minor, major, blocking, unclear
   • category: theory, literature, method, identification, measurement, evidence, statistics, citation, figure/table, reproducibility, ethics, writing, scope
   • risk: low, medium, high, blocking
5. Map each item to an action:
   • ACCEPT_TEXT
   • ACCEPT_ANALYSIS
   • ACCEPT_FIGURE_TABLE
   • CLARIFY_EXISTING
   • ADD_CITATION_VERIFIED
   • SOFTEN_CLAIM
   • PARTIAL
   • DISAGREE_WITH_EVIDENCE
   • OUT_OF_SCOPE
   • AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED
   • BLOCKING
6. Build the response strategy summary before drafting prose.
7. Draft point-by-point responses only for items with enough facts.
8. For every claimed change, include manuscript location, figure/table/supplement location, citation evidence, or an explicit placeholder.
9. For response prose and revised wording, run the local stop-slop surface scan through writing_quality_rules.json: remove throat-clearing, performative emphasis, vague importance claims, binary-reversal formulas, negative-listing setups, mechanical rather than / since / however / therefore / not only but also transitions, hidden-actor prose, uniform short paragraph blocks, and rhythmically over-polished paragraph endings. Keep reviewer respect, factual precision, legitimate hedging, contribution posture, and unchanged manuscript claims.
10. Run verification:

• every comment answered or explicitly unresolved
• every "we have..." statement tied to real evidence
• no invented line numbers, analyses, citations, figures, data, or appendices
• disagreement first acknowledges the concern
• limitations are not hidden
• the response does not over-concede, apologize for supported contributions, or rewrite a defensible claim as a limitation
• Chinese terms in revised manuscript wording follow Chinese literature and established Chinese academic usage rather than ad hoc English-to-Chinese translation

Re-Review Verification

When the user asks whether revisions addressed comments, produce a verification matrix:

ID	Original comment	Author claim	Claimed location	Verified status	Residual issue	Required next action

Use these statuses:

• FULLY_ADDRESSED
• PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED
• NOT_ADDRESSED
• MADE_WORSE
• CANNOT_VERIFY

If author notes say only "已修改" or "addressed as suggested", mark CANNOT_VERIFY until the real location and change are supplied.

Output Contract

Default output:

# Reviewer Response Pack

## Response Strategy Summary
- Decision type:
- Overall posture:
- Major risks:
- Suggested order:
- Readiness:

## Comment-Response Tracker
| ID | Reviewer concern | Category | Severity | Action | Missing author input | Readiness | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Draft Point-By-Point Response

## Manuscript Change Checklist

## Revision Verification Matrix

## Missing Information And Blockers

## 中文核对

Red Lines

• Do not ignore any reviewer comment.
• Do not change the meaning of a reviewer comment.
• Do not claim a revision was made unless the user supplied it or it is visible in the revised manuscript.
• Do not invent line numbers, page numbers, figure panels, citations, statistical results, sample sizes, data availability, or supplementary materials.
• Do not cite time, money, or convenience as the main reason for not doing requested work.
• Do not draft around missing ethics, compliance, or data-integrity requirements.
• Do not let response writing bypass citation-verifier, writing-reference-capture, or the peer-review protocol gate.
• Do not over-weaken supported claims just to sound polite. If a claim is evidence-backed, preserve it and clarify its boundary.