# Nature Response

Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family...

- Repository: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar (5959 stars)
- Category: Writing
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-10-19
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar --skill nature-response -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar --skill nature-response -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar --skill nature-response -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar --skill nature-response -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar`

## Description

Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 reviewer.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# 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.

## Mined writing memory

For response structure or tone, check the active installed
`skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/paper-miner-writing-memory.md`
under the current client's skill home. Read only relevant rebuttal and venue
entries. Reviewer comments, manuscript changes, and journal instructions remain
the source of truth. Do not borrow claims or copy source phrasing. If the memory
is absent or has no relevant entries, continue with this skill's references.

## Accepted inputs

The skill may receive:

The rest: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar/blob/HEAD/skills/nature-response/SKILL.md