Peer Review Response Drafter

Assist researchers in crafting professional, polite, and effective responses to peer reviewer comments for academic journal submissions.

Overview

This skill parses reviewer comments, drafts structured responses, and adjusts tone to ensure:

• - Professional and courteous language
• Clear point-by-point addressing of concerns
• Constructive framing of disagreements
• Consistent academic writing style

When to Use

• - Responding to peer reviewer comments after paper revision
• Preparing author response letters for journal resubmission
• Addressing major/minor revision requirements
• Drafting rebuttal letters for conference submissions
• Converting informal notes into formal response language

Workflow

Step 1: Parse Input

Collect and structure the following:

• - Reviewer comments: Original text from reviewers (often numbered/sectioned)
• Manuscript context: Title, journal name, revision round (if applicable)
• Author changes: Brief notes on what was modified in response to each comment
• Tone preference: Formal academic / diplomatic / assertive (default: diplomatic)

Step 2: Structure Response Letter

Standard academic response letter format:

CODEBLOCK0

Step 3: Draft Individual Responses

For each reviewer comment, generate a response containing:

1. 1. Acknowledgment: Thank the reviewer for the observation
2. Action taken: Describe the change made (if applicable)
3. Location indicator: Page/line number where change appears
4. Optional rationale: Brief explanation if no change was made

Response Templates

Accepting a suggestion:
CODEBLOCK1

Partial acceptance with modification:
CODEBLOCK2

Politely declining:
CODEBLOCK3

Step 4: Tone Adjustment

Adjust language based on context:

Tone	Use Case	Example Phrasing
Diplomatic	General revisions	"We thank..." / "We appreciate..." / "We have revised..."
Assertive

Defending methodology | "We respectfully note..." / "Our approach is justified because..." |
| Grateful | Major improvements | "We are grateful for..." / "This significantly improved..." |

Input Format

Accept multiple input formats:

• - Copy-pasted reviewer comments
• PDF extracted text
• Structured JSON with comment IDs
• Markdown with sections

Output Format

Returns a complete response letter with:

• - Proper salutation and closing
• Numbered responses matching reviewer comments
• Inline citations to manuscript locations
• Professional academic tone throughout

Usage Example

CODEBLOCK4

Parameters

Parameter	Type	Required	Default	Description
INLINECODE0	flag	No	-	Interactive mode: Guided wizard with prompts (uses input()). Recommended for first-time users or complex responses
INLINECODE2

str | No | - | Path to reviewer comments file (automation mode) | | --output | str | No | - | Output file path for response letter | | --tone | str | No | "diplomatic" | Response tone: "diplomatic", "formal", or "assertive" | | --format | str | No | "markdown" | Output format: "markdown", "plain_text", or "latex" | | --include-diff | bool | No | true | Whether to summarize changes made |

Usage Modes:

• - Interactive Mode: Use --interactive for guided setup with prompts (recommended for first-time users)
• File Mode (Recommended for automation): Use --input-file with pre-prepared reviewer comments

Technical Notes

• - Difficulty: High - Requires understanding of academic norms, context-aware tone adjustment, and nuanced handling of criticism
• Limitations: Does not verify factual accuracy of responses; human review required for technical content
• Safety: No external API calls; processes text locally

References

• - references/response_templates.md - Common response patterns
• INLINECODE10 - Academic tone guidelines
• INLINECODE11 - Sample response letters

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• - [ ] Every reviewer comment has a corresponding response
• [ ] Responses are numbered/lettered consistently with comments
• [ ] All changes are referenced with page/line numbers
• [ ] Disagreements are framed constructively
• [ ] No defensive or confrontational language
• [ ] Professional tone maintained throughout

Risk Assessment

Risk Indicator	Assessment	Level
Code Execution	Python/R scripts executed locally	Medium
Network Access

No external API calls | Low | | File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium | | Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low | | Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low |

Security Checklist

• - [ ] No hardcoded credentials or API keys
• [ ] No unauthorized file system access (../)
• [ ] Output does not expose sensitive information
• [ ] Prompt injection protections in place
• [ ] Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
• [ ] Output directory restricted to workspace
• [ ] Script execution in sandboxed environment
• [ ] Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
• [ ] Dependencies audited

Prerequisites

CODEBLOCK5

Evaluation Criteria

Success Metrics

• - [ ] Successfully executes main functionality
• [ ] Output meets quality standards
• [ ] Handles edge cases gracefully
• [ ] Performance is acceptable

Test Cases

1. 1. Basic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output
2. Edge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling
3. Performance: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time

Lifecycle Status

• - Current Stage: Draft
• Next Review Date: 2026-03-06
• Known Issues: None
• Planned Improvements:

- Performance optimization - Additional feature support