review-response-to-reviewerslisted

# /review-response-to-reviewers This letter is read by the same reviewers who wrote the comments, and they check one thing above all: was every point addressed? A missed point guarantees another review round, and the process can already run two or three times. The highest-value check here is not stylistic. It is **verifying that changes claimed in the letter actually exist in the manuscript.** ## Before anything else 1. **Load the style rules.** Invoke `paper-writing-style`. If absent, use the condensed rules in `create-response-to-reviewers`. 2. **Lock the language.** Language of the user's first message. Rewrites are English. 3. **Get all three documents** if possible: the reviewer comments, the response letter, and the revised manuscript. Each check below needs a different pair, and the most important one needs all three. ## Check 1: coverage Re-enumerate the comments **from the original reviews**, independently of how the letter numbered them. Reviewer prose hides multiple requests in single paragraphs, and a letter that numbered them generously may still have merged two. Build a coverage table: comment number, the comment's substance in a few words, whether the letter responds, and whether a manuscript location is given. Report: 1. **Unanswered comments.** The most serious finding. Quote the comment and say it has no response. 2. **Partially answered comments**, where a two-part request got a one-part answer. Very common with "Furthermore, the authors s