nature-response

$27

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• Do not cite time, money, or convenience as the primary reason for not doing a requested experiment.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.