| name | nature-response |
| description | Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 reviewer. |
| argument-hint | [reviewer comments and author revision notes] |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| status | Beta |
Nature Reviewer Response Skill
Use this skill to convert editor decision letters, reviewer comments, author notes, or
draft rebuttals into an auditable point-by-point response package for manuscript revisions.
The response letter is an editor-facing verification document. The goal is to show that every
reviewer concern has been understood, addressed, and mapped to a concrete manuscript change,
justified scientific response, or unresolved author action.
Default stance
- Preserve each reviewer comment faithfully before responding.
- Every reviewer concern must be answered, cross-referenced, or explicitly marked as unresolved.
- Map every response to manuscript evidence, a revision location, a justified disagreement, or
AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
- Do not invent experiments, analyses, citations, line numbers, figure panels, supplementary materials, editor instructions, reviewer identities, or manuscript changes.
- Prefer concise, evidence-linked replies over long defensive explanations.
- When disagreeing, acknowledge the concern first, then give a scientific or scope-based reason.
- When a reviewer misunderstood the manuscript, first consider whether the manuscript presentation caused the misunderstanding.
- Treat rebuttal letters as potentially public review artifacts; write with professional tone and traceability.
Accepted inputs
The skill may receive:
- editor decision letter
- reviewer comments
- previous response draft
- manuscript change notes
- tracked-change summary
- line or page numbers
- figure, table, and supplement list
- author notes in Chinese or English
- journal name and article type
If reviewer boundaries or comment segmentation are ambiguous, flag the ambiguity instead of
inventing reviewer structure.
Workflow
- Identify task mode and input readiness:
draft, audit, revise, triage-only, or appeal-like.
- Identify decision type: minor revision, major revision, revise-and-resubmit, transfer after review, or unclear.
- Extract editor instructions first and assign IDs such as
E.1, then split reviewer comments with IDs such as R1.1, R1.2, and R2.1.
- Classify each item by category, severity, action label, missing input, readiness state, and risk.
- Create a response strategy summary before drafting prose.
- Draft responses using preserved reviewer comments unless the mode is
triage-only or appeal-like.
- Map each claimed change to manuscript location, figure, table, supplement, citation, or explicit placeholder.
- Flag missing author input rather than fabricating details.
- Run QA for completeness, traceability, factuality, tone, and unresolved risk.
- Return the response package with package readiness:
ready_to_submit, draft_with_placeholders, needs_author_input, or blocked.
Output format
Unless the user asks for another format, return:
Response strategy summary
- Decision type:
- Overall posture:
- Major risks:
- Suggested ordering:
Comment-response tracker
| ID | Reviewer concern | Type | Severity | Proposed action | Missing author input |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Draft point-by-point response letter
[editor-readable English response]
Manuscript change checklist
- [specific manuscript changes or placeholders]
Missing information / risk flags
- [specific unresolved items or "None"]
中文核对
- [when the user writes in Chinese; otherwise omit unless useful]
Red lines
- Do not ignore any reviewer comment.
- Do not rephrase reviewer comments in a way that changes their meaning.
- Do not claim a revision was made unless the user supplied it.
- Do not invent line numbers, figure panels, citations, statistical results, or supplementary items.
- Do not use hostile or accusatory language.
- Do not cite time, money, or convenience as the primary reason for not doing a requested experiment.
- Do not hide limitations.
- Do not generate an appeal letter as the default path. Route appeal-like cases separately.
- Do not generate a cover letter in the MVP. Mention it only as adjacent revision-package material when relevant.
Related files
| File | Open when |
|---|
| references/intake-and-routing.md | Before drafting, to identify task mode, minimum inputs, editor IDs, readiness state, and clarifying-question need |
| references/source-basis.md | You need source hierarchy, rule provenance, or policy-vs-advice boundaries |
| references/response-structure.md | You need the response package format or point-by-point letter anatomy |
| references/comment-taxonomy.md | You need to classify reviewer comments by category and severity |
| references/action-mapping.md | You need action labels, tracker fields, and missing-input states |
| references/tone-and-stance.md | You need recommended language, forbidden phrasing, or disagreement tone |
| references/chinese-author-alignment.md | The user writes in Chinese or provides Chinese author notes |
| references/difficult-cases.md | The comments involve impossible experiments, factual errors, conflicting reviewers, citations, statistics, compliance, transfer, or appeal-like cases |
| references/qa-checklist.md | Before finalizing an output or auditing a draft response |
Source hierarchy
Use sources in this order:
- Target journal instructions and the editor decision letter.
- Nature / Nature Portfolio / Springer Nature revision and peer-review process guidance.
- Springer Nature editorial advice on rebuttal letters.
- Local manuscript facts supplied by the author.
If a policy detail may have changed, verify the current journal page before giving final
submission advice.
