Ieee Response

IEEE Reviewer Response and Cover Letter

Use this skill to turn a set of reviews into a disciplined response letter, and to write the cover letter that frames a submission for the editor. The response letter is a contract: each reply states what changed and where to find it.

Core stance

• Answer every comment, in order. No reviewer point is skipped, merged away, or silently

ignored — even the ones you disagree with.

• Every "we changed X" must be locatable. Quote the revised text or cite the section/line; a

promise with no anchor reads as evasion.

• Cooperative, not submissive. Thank, then engage on the merits. You may disagree — back it

with evidence, not insistence — but concede readily when the reviewer is right.

• No fabrication. Do not claim experiments you did not run, results you did not get, or

citations you did not add. If a request needs work not yet done, mark it [AUTHOR INPUT NEEDED] and list it — never paper over it.

• The letter and the manuscript agree. Anything the response says you did must actually exist

in the revised PDF.

When to open extra files

| File | Open when | |---|---| | [references/response-structure.md](references/response-structure.md) | Building the point-by-point letter: comment IDs, the triage/action model, reply templates, agree/disagree/defer patterns, traceability, tone | | [references/cover-letter.md](references/cover-letter.md) | Writing the cover letter for a new or revised submission: structure, contribution framing, editor-facing claims, required statements |

The triage model (classify every comment first)

ACCEPT_TEXT       reviewer is right → make the change, quote it in the reply
SOFTEN_CLAIM      reviewer found an overclaim → narrow the wording, point to the new sentence
ADD_EVIDENCE      needs an experiment/analysis → run it (ieee-experiments) or mark AUTHOR INPUT NEEDED
CLARIFY           a misunderstanding → fix the text that misled, then explain (the fault is usually the writing)
DISAGREE          reviewer is mistaken → rebut with evidence, respectfully, and still add a clarifying line
DEFER             out of scope / future work → acknowledge, justify briefly, note in limitations

Disagreement is legitimate but expensive: every DISAGREE should still produce a small text change so the reviewer sees they were heard.

Workflow

1. Extract and number every comment. Split each reviewer's text into atomic points

(R1.1, R1.2, ...). One concern per ID, even if buried mid-paragraph.

1. Triage each with the model above; decide the action before drafting a word.
2. Do the work first, write the reply second. Text edits via ieee-writing/ieee-polishing, new

results via ieee-experiments. The reply describes work that exists.

1. Draft each reply as: thank/restate → what we did → where it is (quote or location). Keep

the reviewer's words quoted above your response.

1. Open with a summary of the main changes and a thank-you to the editor and reviewers.
2. Check coverage: every comment ID has a reply; every "changed" has an anchor; no fabricated

claim; tone consistent.

1. Write the cover letter separately (see cover-letter.md) — it addresses the editor, not the

reviewers, and frames fit and contribution.

1. Return the response letter, the cover letter, and a coverage checklist.

Output format

1. Response letter: per-reviewer, numbered, quoted comment + reply (thank → change → location).
2. Cover letter: editor-facing, framing contribution and fit (and, for revisions, the headline

changes).

1. Coverage check: table of Comment ID → action → anchor in manuscript → status.
2. Open items: anything marked [AUTHOR INPUT NEEDED] the user must still supply.

Source & license

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

• Author: TenWalk
• Source: TenWalk/ieee-skills
• License: MIT

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