revision-response

name	revision-response
description	Convert an editor decision and reviewer comments into a complete traceable revision ledger, evidence-bounded response draft, and verified manuscript change log. Use for major or minor revision, point-by-point responses, resubmission planning, and revision coverage audits.

Revision Response

Drive a revision from verbatim comments to verifiable actions. Planned work is not completed work.

Required inputs

Require the decision letter or source comments and the manuscript version under revision. Preserve every comment verbatim. If source comments cannot be parsed or counted reliably, set status to blocked.

An active journal pack may be injected by the extension for formatting and file rules. It is not evidence and must not change the scientific meaning of a response.

Canonical sidecar

Create revision-ledger.json from ../../templates/revision-ledger.json. Minimum fields:

• top level: schema_version, status, manuscript_version, comments[];
• comment: comment_id, source, verbatim, category, priority, actions[], evidence_anchors[], and status;
• action: action_id, description, manuscript_locations[], evidence_anchors[], and status.

Use schema version pi-research/revision-ledger/1.x. Top-level status is ready_for_author_review, partial, or blocked; only ready_for_author_review can pass. Priorities are P0 through P3. Comment status is resolved, partial, blocked, or unmapped; only resolved can pass. Action status is completed, not_applicable, pending, or blocked. Only completed and not-applicable actions can pass, and both require evidence anchors; completed actions also require manuscript locations.

Create the human-readable mirror from ../../templates/reviewer-comment-ledger.md. It must not omit, merge, or paraphrase source comments.

Workflow

1. Split editor and reviewer text into stable, exhaustive comment IDs.
2. Classify each comment without changing its wording.
3. Map every comment to one or more actions, an evidence-backed disagreement, or an explicit blocker.
4. Identify actions requiring new analysis, evidence, author judgment, or journal-rule verification.
5. Draft a respectful point-by-point response. Preserve scientific disagreement when evidence supports it; do not use gratitude to conceal an unresolved issue.
6. Create manuscript-change-log.md from ../../templates/manuscript-change-log.md, and add only edits that are present and verifiable in an actual revised artifact.
7. Cross-check response claims, ledger actions, and change-log entries.

Never invent results, analyses, citations, line numbers, page numbers, completed edits, or declarations. Do not force agreement with a reviewer.

Fail-closed gates

Set status to blocked when any source comment is unmapped, a claimed edit has no verified location, a required new analysis is absent, the sidecar is invalid, or a parsing/tool error occurred. Do not auto-edit or overwrite source manuscripts.

Call record_checkpoint with the highest-risk unresolved comment, evidence boundary, or stop rule. Prefix the statement with [revision-ledger.json].

Output

Return:

1. revision-ledger.json;
2. reviewer-comment ledger mirror;
3. point-by-point response draft;
4. verified manuscript change log;
5. unresolved actions and author decisions;
6. status: ready_for_author_review, partial, or blocked.

Human review is required before any external submission.