response-skill

name	response-skill
description	Draft, revise, and verify academic reviewer response letters, rebuttals, revision cover letters, and manuscript-side changes. Use when Codex needs to respond point-by-point to reviewer comments, plan reply strategies, synchronize English/Chinese response files, apply LaTeX redlining, cite revised manuscript page and line locations, or audit response documents before resubmission.

Response Skill

Overview

Use this skill to produce rigorous, submission-ready responses to reviewer comments. Prioritize strategy, minimal manuscript changes, exact revision evidence, synchronized response documents, and final PDF-based page/line verification.

For detailed reusable checklists, read:

• references/response-workflow.md for the full point-by-point response workflow.
• references/latex-redline-checklist.md for LaTeX color marking, caption marking, compilation, and page/line verification.

Core Principles

1. Strategy before drafting

   • For ambiguous or consequential comments, first offer 2-4 response strategies with tradeoffs.
   • Default to the lowest-risk strategy that genuinely addresses the concern.
   • Do not add new experiments unless the user chooses that route or the comment cannot be credibly answered otherwise.

2. Manuscript-light by default

   • Revise the manuscript only where the paper naturally supports the clarification.
   • Prefer targeted wording changes over adding defensive paragraphs.
   • If a Related Work or Discussion sentence resolves the issue, do not force an extra Methods/Experiments explanation.

3. Formal response text only

   • Never leave internal notes, placeholders, or "will add later" language in response files.
   • Every sentence in a response document must be suitable for the editor and reviewers.
   • Remove template text before final verification.

4. Evidence-linked responses

   • Each response should state what changed and where it appears in the revised manuscript.
   • Reference final PDF page numbers and manuscript line numbers, not source-code line numbers.
   • Quote only the revised sentence or phrase when useful; avoid long manuscript excerpts.

5. Color discipline

   • Use the color scheme requested by the user for each reviewer.
   • For normal text changes, color only the changed phrase/sentence.
   • For changed figures or tables, mark the caption rather than coloring table cells or figure internals unless the user explicitly asks otherwise.
   • If one reviewer's concern is already covered by another reviewer's colored revision, cite that existing colored part instead of duplicating the manuscript edit.

6. Synchronize paired files

   • When both English and Chinese response files exist, treat them as a pair.
   • Keep comment numbering, section structure, tone, page/line locations, and revision evidence aligned.

Workflow

Step 1: Inspect Before Writing

• Read the reviewer comment, current response file, manuscript source, and compiled PDF when available.
• Identify:
  • the real concern behind the comment;
  • whether the manuscript already addresses it;
  • the natural manuscript location for a revision;
  • whether existing colored changes can be cited.

Step 2: Choose a Response Strategy

Classify the comment:

• Agree and revise: acknowledge the issue and make a targeted change.
• Clarify without expanding: adjust wording where ambiguity arose.
• Reference an existing revision: cite previous colored changes if they already answer the concern.
• Partially disagree: explain respectfully and revise only the unclear framing.
• Experiment-required: state the needed experiment plan or implement only after user approval.

For high-impact choices, present options before editing.

Step 3: Draft the Point-by-Point Response

Use this structure:

1. Thank the reviewer specifically.
2. State agreement or clarify the interpretation.
3. Describe the manuscript change.
4. Give exact revision location.
5. Include a concise revised excerpt only if it helps.

Avoid repeated generic openings. Vary phrasing while keeping the tone professional and direct.

Step 4: Apply Manuscript Changes

• Make the smallest manuscript change that solves the issue.
• Keep revisions natural in the paper's argument.
• Do not add a sentence merely because the response letter explains something.
• If the added text feels like rebuttal-only defense, keep it in the response letter and remove it from the manuscript.

Step 5: Verify Page and Line Locations

• Compile the manuscript after edits.
• Inspect the final PDF for visual page numbers and right-side manuscript line numbers.
• Update every response location after the manuscript is stable.
• Re-run this check after any later insertion or deletion in the manuscript.

Step 6: Final Audit

Before claiming the response package is ready:

• Search for template phrases and placeholders.
• Confirm no internal notes remain.
• Compile all response files.
• Confirm English and Chinese versions are synchronized.
• Confirm all referenced pages, lines, figures, tables, and captions exist in the final PDF.

External Writing Norms

Use general reviewer-response norms from sources such as PLOS Computational Biology's Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Response to Reviewers: respond point-by-point, remain polite, explain changes clearly, and identify where changes were made. Apply these as general principles; do not copy source wording into the response.