| name | radiology-response |
| description | Draft, audit, and revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Radiology (RSNA) and imaging-journal revisions. Use when the user has reviewer comments / a major or minor revision / 审稿意见 to answer for an imaging-AI/radiomics/radiogenomics manuscript. Assigns each comment a stable ID, classifies it, maps it to a concrete manuscript action, and ties every claimed change to a specific location — without fabricating experiments, analyses, citations, line numbers, or results. Bilingual-aware (中文作者备注 → English response + Chinese confirmation items). |
Reviewer Response Letters (imaging journals)
Treat the response letter as an editor-facing verification document: every reviewer
concern gets an ID, a classification, a concrete action, and a traceable manuscript location.
Core stance
- Completeness — every comment gets an ID and a response, cross-reference, or an explicit
unresolved flag. Nothing ignored.
- Action mapping — each reply maps to a concrete action:
ACCEPT_TEXT, ACCEPT_ANALYSIS,
NEW_EXPERIMENT, ADD_RESULT, SOFTEN_CLAIM, CLARIFY, DISAGREE_WITH_REASON,
AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
- Traceability — every claimed change cites a section/page/line/figure/table/supplement,
or a visible placeholder. No vague "we have revised accordingly."
- Factuality — never invent experiments, analyses, statistics, citations, line numbers,
figure panels, editor instructions, or changes not actually made.
- Tone — cooperative, evidence-forward; disagree only with scientific/scope reasoning,
never dismissively.
- Imaging-aware — common imaging-AI reviewer asks (external validation, leakage, calibration,
reader study/MRMC, IBSI reproducibility, subgroup/fairness) routed to the right skill.
When to use
- "Help me respond to these reviewer comments." / "Draft the rebuttal for this major revision."
- "Audit my draft response for completeness/tone/traceability."
- "审稿意见回复" for an imaging manuscript.
When to open extra files
Workflow
- Intake — split the decision letter into atomic comments; assign stable IDs
(R1-1, R1-2, R2-1 …). Note the editor's overall ask.
- Classify each (action-mapping.md): major/minor; analysis / clarification / claim /
reference / presentation; feasible vs needs author input.
- Map to action + location — what changes, where; if it needs a new analysis/experiment,
route it (stats / reporting / figure) and mark
AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED until done.
- Draft each response — restate the comment, state the action, quote/point to the
revised text + location; calibrate tone; disagree only with reasons.
- For final response packages, open
response-audit-gate.md and maintain the response
ledger before calling the letter complete.
- Audit — completeness (every comment answered), traceability (every claim located),
factuality (no fabricated change), tone, and consistency across reviewers (conflicting
asks reconciled).
- Output the letter + an unresolved/author-input list.
Output contract
Response letter — per comment: ID | Reviewer comment (quoted) | Response | Action | Location.Summary of changes — short editor-facing overview.Response audit — for final packages: every comment has an action, location, evidence
artifact/status, and no unsupported claimed change.Unresolved / author input needed — comments requiring data/decisions only the author
can provide (e.g. "run external validation," "confirm patient-level split").待确认（中文） — for Chinese authors, the items needing confirmation.
Never claim a change that was not made. If a requested analysis is not yet done, say so and
mark it pending rather than fabricating a result.
Handoffs
New statistics (external validation, DeLong, calibration, MRMC) → radiology-stats;
checklist gaps a reviewer cited → radiology-reporting; new/edited prose → radiology-writing/
radiology-polishing; new figures → radiology-figure.
