| 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"} |
Response to Reviewers
Trigger
Use when handling reviewer comments, editor decisions, major/minor revisions, rebuttals, or response letters.
Core rule
Be polite, concrete, and evidence-based. Do not argue emotionally. Annoying, yes. Effective, also yes.
Workflow
1. Parse comments
For each comment identify:
- type: clarity / experiment / method / citation / formatting / disagreement,
- severity,
- requested action,
- manuscript location affected.
2. Decide response strategy
Options:
- agree + changed,
- agree + added experiment,
- partially agree + clarify scope,
- respectfully disagree + evidence,
- cannot do + limitation/future work.
3. Map to manuscript edits
Every substantive response should cite:
- section,
- page/line if available,
- figure/table/equation,
- added text or experiment.
4. CFD-AI specific reviewer demands
Common demands:
- add baseline,
- add unseen Re/geometry tests,
- add solver/grid/CFL details,
- add conservation/physics residual,
- add ablation,
- clarify data split,
- tone down claims.
5. Tone template
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.
Output template
- Reviewer-comment table
- Response strategy per comment
- Required manuscript edits
- New experiments/figures needed
- Draft response letter
- Risky comments needing advisor decision
Anti-patterns
- Thanking the reviewer without a concrete manuscript change.
- Arguing tone before addressing the technical evidence gap.
- Promising new experiments that are not in the revised manuscript.
- Failing to quote or locate changed manuscript text.
Verification
- Every reviewer point is answered.
- Tone is polite.
- Changes are traceable to manuscript sections.
- Claims are weakened when evidence is insufficient.
