nature-response

name	nature-response
description	Generate a point-by-point reviewer response letter in Nature house style (complements `rebuttal-writer` which targets conference rebuttals).

nature-response — Nature journal point-by-point response

When to use this skill

Use this skill only when the target venue is Nature or a Nature sub-journal (Nature Methods, Nature Cities, Nature Machine Intelligence, ...). For NeurIPS / ICLR / ACL / CVPR-style conference rebuttals, use rebuttal-writer instead — the formatting conventions are incompatible.

Inputs

File	Required	Notes
artifacts/reviewer_feedback.json	yes	Same schema as Wave A.1. May use the minimal weaknesses: [str] shape or the enriched comments: [...] shape (see generator docstring).
artifacts/draft_revised.tex	yes	The post-revision manuscript. The generator does not parse it but its presence proves the author has actually revised before drafting the response.

Output

artifacts/nature_response.md — a Markdown letter, one block per reviewer comment, grouped by reviewer.

House-style rules (enforced by the generator's validator)

1. Opening sentence. Every response must open with one of: We have ..., We now ..., We thank ..., We agree ..., We respectfully .... Nature copy editors flag passive or non-actionable openings ("It is now the case that ...").
2. Manuscript-change footer. Every response must end with the exact pattern Manuscript change: [page X, line Y, paragraph Z] (all three integers). Editors do not diff — the footer lets them jump straight to the change.
3. No weasel words. Phrases like "future work", "in subsequent studies", "we plan to", "beyond the scope", "we may explore" are forbidden. Nature reviewers treat deferred promises as non-responses. If you genuinely cannot address a point, mark it disagreed and justify the disagreement.
4. Disposition label. Every block carries one of three labels in the header:
   • Addressed by experiment — new data / new analysis added.
   • Addressed by clarification — wording / framing change only.
   • Disagreed (with justification) — explicit refusal, justified inline.
5. Length caps. Per-response ≤ 300 words; total letter ≤ ~8 A4 pages (≈ 3600 words at Nature density). Editors triage by length; a 14-page letter signals defensive over-explanation.

How to invoke

from nature_response_generator import generate

result = generate("/path/to/project")
# result["validation"]["ok"] is False if any house-style rule fires.
# result["validation"]["violations"] lists every failure with comment id.

Difference from rebuttal-writer (Wave A.1)

Dimension	rebuttal-writer (conference)	nature-response (Nature)
Length cap	Per-reviewer page budget (venue-specific)	Per-response 300 words, total 8 A4 pages
Opening	Free — Thank the reviewer ..., R1 raises ... etc.	Fixed prefix whitelist
Manuscript locator	Section/figure references inline	Mandatory [page X, line Y, paragraph Z] footer
"Future work"	Permitted as polite hedge	Forbidden (weasel)
Disposition	Free-form category (legitimate, looks-legit-but-wrong, ...)	Fixed 3-label vocabulary

Failure modes the generator catches

• Block missing for any comment id present in reviewer_feedback.json.
• Response opens with anything other than the allowed prefixes.
• Manuscript change: [...] footer missing or malformed.
• Any weasel phrase in any response body.
• Per-response word count over 300.
• Total letter word count over ~3600.

See templates/response_block.md for the canonical block shape an LLM (or human) should produce when populating the enriched comments[*].response field of reviewer_feedback.json.