# Science Response

> Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Science/AAAS-family revisions. Use when the user provides editor decision letters, reviewer comments, manuscript change notes, response drafts, line numbers, figure changes, or asks for response to reviewers, rebuttal letter, major revision, minor revision, revise-and-resubmit, or Chinese reviewer-response support.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-shikaijieskj-science-skills-science-response`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [shikaijieskj](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/shikaijieskj)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [shikaijieskj](https://github.com/shikaijieskj)
- **Source:** https://github.com/shikaijieskj/science-skills/tree/main/skills/science-response

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-shikaijieskj-science-skills-science-response
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Science Reviewer Response

Use this skill to turn review comments and author notes into an auditable response package.
The response letter should help the editor verify that every concern has a concrete answer.

Chinese trigger examples include `审稿意见回复`, `逐点回复`, `大修回复`, `小修回复`, and
`如何回复 reviewer`.

## Default stance

- Preserve reviewer comments faithfully.
- Answer every editor and reviewer item.
- Map every claimed change to manuscript location, figure, table, supplement, citation, or
  `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
- Do not invent experiments, analyses, citations, line numbers, figure panels, or changes.
- Prefer concise, evidence-linked replies over defensive explanations.
- If a response pushes back, first show that the concern was understood, then anchor the
  disagreement in evidence, journal scope, or study design.

## Open extra files

| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| [references/response-structure.md](references/response-structure.md) | Need full response-package anatomy and tracker fields |
| [references/tone-and-traceability.md](references/tone-and-traceability.md) | Need disagreement phrasing, tone repair, or line/figure mapping |
| [references/qa-checklist.md](references/qa-checklist.md) | Before finalizing or auditing a draft response |

## Workflow

1. Identify decision type: minor revision, major revision, revise-and-resubmit, transfer, reject
   with invitation, or unclear.
2. Extract editor instructions first and label them `E.1`, `E.2`.
3. Split reviewer comments into `R1.1`, `R1.2`, `R2.1`...
4. Classify each item:
   `data`, `analysis`, `method`, `statistics`, `writing`, `figure`, `citation`, `scope`,
   `ethics/policy`, or `misunderstanding`.
5. Assign action:
   `revised`, `new analysis`, `new experiment`, `clarified`, `added citation`, `justified no change`,
   or `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
6. Draft responses only after the tracker is complete.
7. Run QA for completeness, traceability, factuality, and tone.

## Output format

```text
Response strategy summary
- Decision type:
- Overall posture:
- Major risks:

Comment-response tracker
| ID | Concern | Type | Severity | Action | Manuscript location | Missing input |

Draft point-by-point response
[letter]

Revision checklist
- [specific manuscript changes]

Risk flags
- [specific flags or "None"]
```

For Chinese author notes, write the submission-facing response in English and include a brief
Chinese action checklist.

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [shikaijieskj](https://github.com/shikaijieskj)
- **Source:** [shikaijieskj/science-skills](https://github.com/shikaijieskj/science-skills)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-shikaijieskj-science-skills-science-response
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/shikaijieskj
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.