Referee Response

Referee Response

Turns scattered reviewer comments into an ordered revision plan and a response letter the author fills in. The author writes every substantive answer, including the interpretation of a result and the reason a request is declined; this skill makes sure each point is found, ordered, answered somewhere, and formatted the way editors expect.

Related skills. journal-review writes a referee report for someone else's manuscript; this skill answers one written about yours. sci-edit polishes the letter's prose after the author has written the answers. paper-review-lite and citation-check are useful before resubmission when a referee's point implies the manuscript needs a fresh audit.

Inputs

One or more referee reports, the editor's decision letter if available, and the manuscript (current draft, and the submitted version if the two differ). If a report is a PDF or Word file, read it with doc-to-markdown first. Ask once for anything missing that the steps below need; do not guess at a report's content.

Modes

Infer from the request; an argument forces it.

• plan (default when no letter exists yet): steps 1–3.
• letter: steps 1–4, producing the letter skeleton.
• check: step 5 over a letter the author has filled in.

Step 1 — Extract every point

List every distinct request, criticism, or question across all reports and the editor's letter. One row per point, even when a referee bundles several into one paragraph. For each point record:

• referee (R1, R2, editor), and the location in the report;
• the point, quoted or closely paraphrased so the author can find it;
• severity: blocking (the editor or a referee makes acceptance conditional on it), major, minor, optional (a suggestion the author may decline);
• type: analysis, design, framing, writing, citation, data or code, presentation;
• whether another referee raises the same point, agrees, or conflicts with it.

Count the points and tell the author the count per referee. A missed point is the commonest reason a resubmission fails, so the list is the deliverable of this step, not a summary of it.

Step 2 — Map dependencies and order the revision

Order the points so upstream changes come first: a new specification before the discussion that interprets it; a reframing before the sections that rest on it; a data correction before every number that depends on it. Group into a sequence (do first → depends on). Flag conflicts between referees as editor-judgment calls and say what each resolution would cost.

For each point in order: the change implied, the manuscript sections and files it touches, whether it needs new analysis, and a rough effort estimate. Where a point would distort the manuscript's argument if taken literally, say so.

Step 3 — Flag the pushbacks, as questions

Not every request should be accepted. Mark the points where a reasoned decline is defensible (the request contradicts the pre-registration, rests on a misreading, asks for an analysis the design cannot support, or would trade a confirmatory claim for an exploratory one) and give the reason. Put each to the author as a question; the decision is theirs. Do not write the decline itself.

Step 4 — Build the letter skeleton

The standard shape editors expect:

1. Cover note to the editor. Thanks, a two-sentence summary of the main changes, and a pointer to the point-by-point response. Leave the summary as [AUTHOR: two sentences on the main changes].

2. General response (optional): a short paragraph for changes that cut across several points. Placeholder.

3. One section per referee, in the order the editor listed them. Within each, every point from step 1 in the referee's own order, as a numbered table or numbered blocks:

   #	Reviewer comment	Response	Where in the manuscript
   R1.1	quoted or paraphrased point	[AUTHOR: …]	[section / page / line]

   Keep the reviewer's wording in the comment column so the referee recognizes the point. Pre-fill the response column only with the kind of response the plan implies ([AUTHOR: describe the new robustness table], [AUTHOR: reasoned decline, see step 3]), never with content. Where the same point appears under two referees, cross-reference rather than duplicate.

4. Editor's points, if the letter contains any beyond the referees'.

Write the skeleton to response_to_reviewers.md beside the manuscript unless the author names another path. State how many placeholders it contains.

Step 5 — Check the filled letter

Once the author has written the responses:

• Every point from step 1 has a non-placeholder response; list any that do not.
• Every manuscript location cited in the letter exists in the current draft (section headings, table and figure numbers, page ranges); list any that do not resolve.
• Every response that claims a change names where the change is; every reasoned decline gives a reason.
• Tone: responses are courteous and specific, never defensive; flag sentences that argue with the referee rather than answer them, and leave the rewording to the author or to sci-edit.
• Conflicting referees: the letter says which way the author went and why.

Report the checks as a short list of what passed and what needs the author's attention.

Notes

• Heritage: grown from a personal referee-response skill (2026-05) into a library skill on 2026-09-02.