response-to-reviewers

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

1. Reviewer-comment table
2. Response strategy per comment
3. Required manuscript edits
4. New experiments/figures needed
5. Draft response letter
6. 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.