| name | nature-response |
| description | Draft, audit, or revise Nature-style revision correspondence packages: point-by-point reviewer-separated response letters, rebuttal letters, revision cover letters, LaTeX cover/response templates, and red-marked revised-manuscript excerpts. Keep mutually blind reviewers isolated so no reviewer-facing response reveals another reviewer's comments, numbering, recommendation, or author response. Use for reviewer comments, editor decision letters, pasted editorial emails, response drafts, cover letters, response to reviewers, rebuttal, 修回信, 返修邮件, 编辑邮件, 返修 cover letter, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 大修回复, 小修回复, 回复审稿人, 修改稿回复, 写rebuttal, 回应审稿意见, 标红修改, or LaTeX 模板. |
Nature Reviewer Response — Router
This skill is split into two layers:
- A static layer under
static/ that holds versioned, reusable content fragments (the default stance and red lines, and the response workflow with output format).
- A dynamic layer (this file plus
manifest.yaml) that loads the core every time and reaches for the deeper response references or templates only when a step needs them.
Do not try to apply the response logic from memory or from this router. Always load fragments from disk as described below.
Routing protocol
Follow these four steps every time the skill is invoked.
1. Load the manifest and the core layer
Read manifest.yaml. Then read every file listed under always_load:
static/core/stance.md — the editor-facing purpose, the default stance, the red lines, and the source hierarchy that apply to every response job.static/core/workflow.md — accepted inputs, the revision correspondence workflow, and the output package format.
2. No content axis — identify mode and language inline
Unlike nature-writing or nature-figure, nature-response has no fragment axis. Its variation is identified at runtime, not by loading different content bodies:
- task mode —
draft / audit / revise / triage-only / cover-letter / revision-package / latex-template / appeal-like.
- decision type — minor revision, major revision, revise-and-resubmit, transfer after review, or unclear.
- user language — if the user writes Chinese, also produce the 中文核对 block.
Decision type is a required intake gate for normal revision work. First extract it from an
editor decision letter when available. If it is still unclear, ask the user whether this is a
Major Revision or Minor Revision before drafting a response strategy or response prose. Do
not infer the decision from the number, tone, or apparent difficulty of reviewer comments.
Use references/intake-and-routing.md to fix the task mode, minimum inputs, and readiness state before drafting. Route appeal-like cases separately; do not draft an appeal as the default path.
3. Run the workflow
Follow the workflow in core/workflow.md: if the user pasted a journal email, first parse manuscript metadata, decision type, editor instructions, reviewer reports, required files, deadlines, and reviewer-visibility rules from the email; identify mode and pass the decision-type gate; apply the Major- or Minor-Revision strategy without downgrading the severity of individual comments; extract editor instructions (IDs E.1) then reviewer comments (R1.1, R2.1) when present; classify each item by response action and independently verified work status; build an internal/editor master strategy and tracker; draft a standalone privacy-filtered response for each mutually blind reviewer; when a reviewer missed material already present in the manuscript, treat that as a clarity signal and revise the presentation instead of replying that the point was already stated; draft a revision cover letter when required; map every claimed change to a manuscript location or explicit placeholder; mark changed manuscript text in red on a backed-up copy when editing; format quoted revised manuscript text in the response letter in italics; flag missing author input; run QA; and derive package readiness from the per-item statuses and blocking state.
Never invent experiments, citations, line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, editor instructions, or manuscript changes. Mark anything the author must supply as AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
4. Reach for references only when needed
The files under references/ and templates/ are deep resources, not defaults. Open them on demand per the references.on_demand table in the manifest — for example references/comment-taxonomy.md to classify comments, references/action-mapping.md for tracker fields, references/tone-and-stance.md for disagreement wording, references/difficult-cases.md for impossible experiments / conflicting reviewers / appeal-like cases, references/chinese-author-alignment.md for Chinese author notes, references/latex-templates.md for .tex cover/response/redline outputs, references/package-consistency-audit.md whenever the manuscript is edited alongside the letter or the package is about to be compiled and delivered, and references/qa-checklist.md before finalizing.
qa-checklist.md and package-consistency-audit.md are complementary and both apply to a final package: the first asks whether the response is complete, honest, and well-toned; the second asks whether the marked manuscript, the clean manuscript, and the letter actually agree with each other after editing. For a LaTeX package, run scripts/check_package_consistency.py after the first complete draft, after every manuscript edit, and immediately before delivery. Any manuscript edit invalidates the letter's verbatim quotes and page references, so re-run the audit rather than treating it as a one-time final check.
Why this split
- The static layer is versioned and reviewable; the core stays small for a normal response.
- The dynamic layer keeps each invocation cheap: the difficult-case, taxonomy, and QA depth load only when a step needs them.
- The router itself is short on purpose. Update fragments and references, not this file, when adding scope.
- This structure mirrors
nature-writing, nature-polishing, nature-reader, nature-paper2ppt, nature-figure, and nature-citation.
