Menu
Use when preparing point-by-point responses and manuscript revision plans for CFD-AI/SciML journal reviews.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Baseado na classificação ocupacional SOC
Use when writing, reviewing, auditing, revising, or producing LaTeX for CFD-AI and scientific-ML manuscripts, reviews, experiment plans, reproducibility audits, related-work positioning, reviewer responses, or benchmark evaluations.
Use when stress-testing CFD, fluid mechanics, turbulence, PINN, neural-operator, surrogate, closure, or SciML manuscripts from a strict reviewer perspective.
Use when designing figures, result flow, captions, and visual evidence for CFD-AI/SciML journal manuscripts.
Use when coordinating multiple specialized CFD-AI/SciML paper agents: reviewer, evidence auditor, experiment planner, figure editor, prose editor, and final gatekeeper.
Use when auditing a CFD-AI/SciML manuscript's abstract, introduction, contributions, or discussion to verify that every claim is supported by evidence and scoped correctly.
Use when running iterative reviewer-to-editor revision of a CFD-AI/SciML manuscript: reviewer audit, editorial rewrite, re-audit, residual-risk tracking, and submission-readiness gating.
| name | response-to-reviewers |
| description | Use when preparing point-by-point responses and manuscript revision plans for CFD-AI/SciML journal reviews. |
| version | 0.3.0 |
| author | CFD-AI Paper Skills maintainers |
| metadata | {"short-description":"Response-letter strategy for CFD-AI/SciML revisions"} |
Use when handling reviewer comments, editor decisions, major/minor revisions, rebuttals, or response letters.
Be polite, concrete, and evidence-based. Do not argue emotionally. Annoying, yes. Effective, also yes.
For each comment identify:
Options:
Every substantive response should cite:
Common demands:
Use:
We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We agree that [issue] requires clarification. We have revised Section X to [change]. Specifically, we now [evidence/edit]. The revised manuscript states: “...”.
For disagreement:
We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. While we agree that [general concern] is important, in the present study [scope/evidence]. To avoid overstatement, we have revised the claim in Section X from A to B.
