review-response

name	review-response
description	Draft point-by-point responses to peer review comments. Locates supporting evidence from workspace papers and the original manuscript. Use when the user receives reviewer feedback and needs to write a rebuttal or revision response letter.

Response to Reviewers

Draft point-by-point responses to reviewer comments, locating supporting evidence from workspace papers and the original manuscript.

If the user needs the manuscript itself revised under reviewer comments, use update first. This skill is for the response letter and rebuttal package, not for controlling manuscript-side edit scope.

Prerequisites

The user provides:

1. Reviewer comments: pasted inline or as a file path
2. Original manuscript: a paper draft in the workspace or a file path
3. Workspace: the associated literature workspace (for retrieving supporting evidence)
4. Language: English or Chinese (the response letter typically matches the manuscript language)

Execution Logic

1. Parse Reviewer Comments

Split the reviewer comments into individual items and categorize each:

• MAJOR: requires substantive changes (additional experiments, revised methods, further analysis)
• MINOR: wording changes, formatting adjustments, clarifications
• POSITIVE: positive feedback (acknowledge with thanks)
• QUESTION: questions that need an answer

2. Address Each Comment

For each comment:

1. Understand what the reviewer is fundamentally asking for
2. Locate the relevant passage in the manuscript
3. Search the workspace literature for supporting evidence:

   autor ws search <name> "<keywords from reviewer concern>"
   autor show <dir_name> --level 3      # read L3 conclusion card for orientation and evidence triage
   autor show <dir_name> --level 4      # read full text if needed
   

4. Find additional support from the citation graph:

   autor refs "<id>"                    # references of relevant papers
   autor search "<supplementary keywords>"  # search full library
   

3. Draft the Response

Structure for each response item:

> **Reviewer X, Comment N:** [original comment quoted]

**Response:** [response text]

[If revised] **Revision:** We have revised Section X.X as follows: "..." (Page X, Line X)

Response strategies:

• Agree and revise: clearly state what was changed and where
• Partially agree: acknowledge the valid point, explain why full adoption is not appropriate, and provide evidence
• Respectful rebuttal: support your position with data and literature; remain professional but firm
• Additional experiments/analysis: describe the new content and results

Multi-modal support:

• When a reviewer questions a figure, use the user-provided source figure or published source outside MinerU; autor ingest does not retain images/ attachments
• When a reviewer questions a numerical value, write Python code to independently reproduce the calculation and use the output as evidence
• When a reviewer questions a derivation, read the relevant formulas from the paper and verify step by step

4. Output

• Save the response letter to workspace/<name>/response-letter.md
• If new papers need to be added to the workspace:

  autor ws add <name> <dir_name>
  

Writing Principles

• Address every comment without exception: every item must receive a clear response
• Evidence first: answer with data and literature wherever possible; avoid empty rhetoric
• Professional tone: thank the reviewers for constructive feedback; remain respectful even when disagreeing
• Traceable revisions: clearly indicate the location of changes (Section, Page, Line)
• Don't sidestep weaknesses: if the reviewer has identified a genuine problem, acknowledge it honestly and explain how it has been addressed

Examples

User says: "The review is back; help me write the response letter." → Parse comments, categorize, find evidence in the workspace for each, draft responses

User says: "Reviewer 2 says my method is no different from Smith (2023). How do I respond?" → Find Smith (2023) in the workspace, compare the methods, draft a well-reasoned rebuttal