Menu
Use when preparing point-by-point responses and manuscript revision plans for CFD-AI/SciML journal reviews.
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 writing, reviewing, auditing, revising, or producing LaTeX for CFD-AI and scientific-ML manuscripts, reviews, experiment plans, reproducibility audits, related-work positioning, reviewer responses, or benchmark evaluations.
Use when stress-testing CFD, fluid mechanics, turbulence, PINN, neural-operator, surrogate, closure, or SciML manuscripts from a strict reviewer perspective.
Use when designing figures, result flow, captions, and visual evidence for CFD-AI/SciML journal manuscripts.
Use when coordinating multiple specialized CFD-AI/SciML paper agents: reviewer, evidence auditor, experiment planner, figure editor, prose editor, and final gatekeeper.
Use when auditing a CFD-AI/SciML manuscript's abstract, introduction, contributions, or discussion to verify that every claim is supported by evidence and scoped correctly.
Use when running iterative reviewer-to-editor revision of a CFD-AI/SciML manuscript: reviewer audit, editorial rewrite, re-audit, residual-risk tracking, and submission-readiness gating.
| name | response-to-reviewers |
| description | Use when preparing point-by-point responses and manuscript revision plans for CFD-AI/SciML journal reviews. |
| version | 0.3.0 |
| author | CFD-AI Paper Skills maintainers |
| metadata | {"short-description":"Response-letter strategy for CFD-AI/SciML revisions"} |
Use when handling reviewer comments, editor decisions, major/minor revisions, rebuttals, or response letters.
Be polite, concrete, and evidence-based. Do not argue emotionally. Annoying, yes. Effective, also yes.
For each comment identify:
Options:
Every substantive response should cite:
Common demands:
Use:
We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We agree that [issue] requires clarification. We have revised Section X to [change]. Specifically, we now [evidence/edit]. The revised manuscript states: “...”.
For disagreement:
We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. While we agree that [general concern] is important, in the present study [scope/evidence]. To avoid overstatement, we have revised the claim in Section X from A to B.
