Skills yuan1z0825 nature-skills
nature-response
- Use it when:
- You have an editor decision and reviewer comments and need replies, a full revision package, or an edit of an existing response.
- It does:
- Parses the decision letter, classifies every comment, and drafts a separate reply per reviewer that shows no other reviewer's comments.
- You get:
- An internal tracker, per-reviewer responses, an optional cover letter, red-marked manuscript and LaTeX files, and a readiness verdict.
- Unlike its siblings:
- nature-reviewer writes the reviews, and nature-writing prepares the initial submission.
- Needs:
- The repo's nature-shared package whenever a reply edits the main text.
Whenever a reply proposes or makes a main-text edit it loads a file from the repo's nature-shared support package, so install that alongside.
TL;DR
Turns a revision invitation into a complete response package. It parses the editor email for decision type, instructions, reviewer boundaries, required files and deadlines; if the decision is unclear it asks whether this is a Major or Minor Revision rather than guessing from the comments. The decision sets the overall strategy, evidence-first for Major, bounded corrections for Minor, while a serious concern stays serious in either. It assigns IDs to editor and reviewer items and keeps a master tracker, never shown to reviewers, where duplicates and conflicts are reconciled. Each reviewer gets a standalone reply that answers repeated concerns in full and reveals nothing from the other reports. Every claimed change maps to a manuscript location or a placeholder, and counts as done only when it matches revised text you supplied. Main-text edits stay as short as possible, with extra detail routed to SI. It can mark changes in red on a backed-up copy and fill LaTeX cover-letter, response and redline templates, rerunning a consistency script after each edit. A wording edit or an audit of one reply gets just that. It invents nothing and marks what you must supply.
Summarizes the skill at d774add.
npx skills add https://github.com/yuan1z0825/nature-skills --skill nature-response skills.sh pageSource on GitHubAll skills from yuan1z0825/nature-skills
- Total Downloads
- 16,000 on skills.sh, Nov 9, 2026
- Repo stars
- 52,794 yuan1z0825/nature-skills
- First seen
- May 7, 2026 on skills.sh
Weekly values
| Week to | Installs |
|---|---|
| Sep 21 | 1,006 |
| Sep 28 | 761 |
| Oct 5 | 531 |
| Oct 12 | 670 |
| Oct 19 | 688 |
| Oct 26 | 603 |
| Nov 2 | 454 |
| Nov 9 | 400 |
| Category |
Articles, docs, internal comms, research write-ups and prose that doesn't read as generated. |
|---|---|
| Type |
A multi-step process the agent follows: interview, debug, run a TDD loop, review. |
| Effect |
Its own steps create or change files, git state or local tools. |
| Needs |
Instructions only. Works in any agent that supports skills. |
| Publisher |
Everyone else. Unverified vendor claims default to community. |
| Topics |
SKILL.md
From yuan1z0825/nature-skills at d774add. Checked daily, last changed Nov 6, 2026.
Frontmatter
name: nature-response
description: >-
Draft, audit, or revise responses to peer review, revision cover letters, and
marked-manuscript or LaTeX revision packages. Use for 审稿意见回复、逐点回复、返修信、
rebuttals and edits to existing response drafts. Initial-submission materials
belong to nature-writing; simulated peer review belongs to nature-reviewer.Nature Reviewer Response — Router
Routing protocol
For a new task, load the core and matching resources below. Reuse already loaded guidance on follow-ups; load more only when the task needs it.
1. Load the manifest and the core layer
Read manifest.yaml. Then read every file listed under always_load:
static/core/stance.md— the editor-facing purpose, the default stance, the red lines, and the source hierarchy that apply to every response job.static/core/workflow.md— accepted inputs, the revision correspondence workflow, and the output package format.
2. No content axis — identify mode and language inline
Unlike nature-writing or nature-figure, nature-response has no fragment axis. Its variation is identified at runtime, not by loading different content bodies:
- task mode —
draft/audit/revise/triage-only/cover-letter/revision-package/latex-template/appeal-like. - decision type — minor revision, major revision, revise-and-resubmit, transfer after review, or unclear.
- user language — if the user writes Chinese, also produce the 中文核对 block.
Decision type is required for a new package-level revision strategy or complete response package.
First extract it from the editor letter or task context. If it remains unclear, ask whether this
is a Major Revision or Minor Revision and pause only decision-dependent work. A local wording
edit, audit of an existing reply, or comment-level triage may proceed with decision type marked
unknown. Do not infer the decision from the number, tone, or difficulty of reviewer comments.
Use references/intake-and-routing.md to fix the task mode, minimum inputs, and readiness state before drafting. Route appeal-like cases separately; do not draft an appeal as the default path.
For a local edit or bounded audit, return the revised passage or findings and relevant missing facts. Do not expand it into a master tracker, cover letter, or complete revision package unless requested. Apply the package workflow below only to the parts needed for the requested output.
3. Run the workflow
Follow the workflow in core/workflow.md: if the user pasted a journal email, first parse manuscript metadata, decision type, editor instructions, reviewer reports, required files, deadlines, and reviewer-visibility rules from the email; identify mode and pass the decision-type gate; apply the Major- or Minor-Revision strategy without downgrading the severity of individual comments; extract editor instructions (IDs E.1) then reviewer comments (R1.1, R2.1) when present; classify each item by response action and independently verified work status; build an internal/editor master strategy and tracker; draft a standalone privacy-filtered response for each mutually blind reviewer; when a reviewer missed material already present in the manuscript, treat that as a clarity signal and revise the presentation instead of replying that the point was already stated; draft a revision cover letter when required; map every claimed change to a manuscript location or explicit placeholder; mark changed manuscript text in red on a backed-up copy when editing; format quoted revised manuscript text in the response letter in italics; flag missing author input; run QA; and derive package readiness from the per-item statuses and blocking state.
Whenever a response proposes or performs a manuscript main-text edit, also load
../nature-shared/core/main-text-discipline.md. Answer the reviewer completely
in the letter, but keep the manuscript change to the shortest text needed for
the reader. Prefer replacement or compression over appending, and route
non-central robustness or reconciliation detail to SI unless it changes the
central interpretation.
Never invent experiments, citations, line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, editor instructions, or manuscript changes. Mark anything the author must supply as AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
4. Reach for references only when needed
The files under references/ and templates/ are deep resources, not defaults. Open them on demand per the references.on_demand table in the manifest — for example references/comment-taxonomy.md to classify comments, references/action-mapping.md for tracker fields, references/tone-and-stance.md for disagreement wording, references/difficult-cases.md for impossible experiments / conflicting reviewers / appeal-like cases, references/chinese-author-alignment.md for Chinese author notes, references/latex-templates.md for .tex cover/response/redline outputs, ../nature-shared/core/main-text-discipline.md for reviewer-driven manuscript additions and evidence relocation, references/package-consistency-audit.md whenever the manuscript is edited alongside the letter or the package is about to be compiled and delivered, and references/qa-checklist.md before finalizing.
qa-checklist.md and package-consistency-audit.md are complementary and both apply to a final package: the first asks whether the response is complete, honest, and well-toned; the second asks whether the marked manuscript, the clean manuscript, and the letter actually agree with each other after editing. For a LaTeX package, run scripts/check_package_consistency.py after the first complete draft, after every manuscript edit, and immediately before delivery. Any manuscript edit invalidates the letter's verbatim quotes and page references, so re-run the audit rather than treating it as a one-time final check.