| name | nature-response |
| description | Draft, revise, or audit point-by-point reviewer responses for RL, MARL, LLM, and LLM Agent manuscripts. Use for rebuttal, major revision, response letter, experiment planning, limitation rewriting, and claim softening. |
| version | 2.0.0-agent-rl |
Reviewer response skill
Default stance
Be respectful, concrete and evidence-driven. Never answer a technical criticism with only rhetorical reassurance.
Workflow
- Classify each comment: novelty, method, baseline, experiment, reproducibility, writing, safety, limitation.
- Identify required action: new experiment, new analysis, text clarification, citation addition, limitation admission, impossible request explanation.
- For RL/MARL/LLM/Agent comments, check whether the response needs:
- more seeds or statistics;
- stronger baselines;
- held-out tasks/partners/models;
- compute/latency/cost analysis;
- prompt/tool/trajectory disclosure;
- clearer mathematical formulation.
- Draft a point-by-point response with exact manuscript changes.
- Avoid over-promising. If a real-world experiment is infeasible, explain scope and add limitations/future work.
Output format
Response strategy:
- main risk:
- revision package:
Reviewer comment 1:
Response:
Manuscript changes:
Additional experiments/analysis:
Remaining limitation:
Revision checklist:
- ...
Red lines
Do not fabricate completed experiments. Use “we will add / we have added” only according to the user's status. Do not attack the reviewer.
