nature-response

Featured

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.

AI & Automation 5,634 stars 442 forks Updated 3 days ago MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 96/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# 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 ...

Details

Author
Galaxy-Dawn
Repository
Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar
Created
8 months ago
Last Updated
3 days ago
Language
Python
License
MIT

Integrates with

Bundled in these plugins

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Listed

nature-response

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.

5 Updated 1 months ago
LiHongwei-cn
AI & Automation Listed

nature-response

Draft, audit, or revise Nature-style revision correspondence packages: point-by-point reviewer-separated response letters, rebuttal letters, revision cover letters, LaTeX cover/response templates, and red-marked revised-manuscript excerpts. Keep mutually blind reviewers isolated so no reviewer-facing response reveals another reviewer's comments, numbering, recommendation, or author response. Prevent reviewer-driven manuscript accretion by preferring replacement, compression, or SI relocation over appending non-central defense prose. Use for reviewer comments, editor decision letters, pasted editorial emails, response drafts, cover letters, response to reviewers, rebuttal, 修回信, 返修邮件, 编辑邮件, 返修 cover letter, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 大修回复, 小修回复, 回复审稿人, 修改稿回复, 写rebuttal, 回应审稿意见, 标红修改, or LaTeX 模板.

0 Updated 2 weeks ago
szzjayson25-hub
Code & Development Listed

nature-reviewer

Simulate Nature-style or general pre-submission peer review from the referee perspective, not an author rebuttal. Use for reviewer reports, mock peer review, manuscript critique, novelty/significance/technical-soundness assessment, 审稿人视角评估, 模拟审稿, 预审, 投稿前自审, 审稿意见模拟, or 帮我审一下论文. Produce evidence-grounded Major Concerns, Minor Comments, and blocking flags. For multiple reviewers, keep every reviewer mutually blind in a separate context, freeze all reports before comparison, and create any synthesis only afterward as a separate editor/author-facing artifact.

0 Updated 2 weeks ago
szzjayson25-hub