Install
$ agentstack add skill-lihongwei-cn-lihongwei-cn-nature-response ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
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 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, orappeal-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 asR1.1,R1.2, andR2.1. - 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-onlyorappeal-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, orblocked.
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](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](references/source-basis.md) | You need source hierarchy, rule provenance, or policy-vs-advice boundaries | | [references/response-structure.md](references/response-structure.md) | You need the response package format or point-by-point letter anatomy | | [references/comment-taxonomy.md](references/comment-taxonomy.md) | You need to classify reviewer comments by category and severity | | [references/action-mapping.md](references/action-mapping.md) | You need action labels, tracker fields, and missing-input states | | [references/tone-and-stance.md](references/tone-and-stance.md) | You need recommended language, forbidden phrasing, or disagreement tone | | [references/chinese-author-alignment.md](references/chinese-author-alignment.md) | The user writes in Chinese or provides Chinese author notes | | [references/difficult-cases.md](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](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.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: LiHongwei-cn
- Source: LiHongwei-cn/lihongwei-cn
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://lihongwei-cn.github.io/lihongwei-cn/
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.