---
name: nature-response
description: >-
  Draft, audit, or revise Nature-style revision correspondence packages: point-by-point
  reviewer response letters, rebuttal letters, revision cover letters, LaTeX cover/response
  templates, and red-marked revised-manuscript excerpts. Use for reviewer comments, editor
  decision letters, pasted editorial emails, response drafts, cover letters, response to
  reviewers, rebuttal, 修回信, 返修邮件, 编辑邮件, 返修 cover letter, 审稿意见回复,
  逐点回复, 大修回复, 小修回复, 回复审稿人, 修改稿回复, 写rebuttal, 回应审稿意见,
  标红修改, or LaTeX 模板.
---

# Nature Reviewer Response — Router

This skill is split into two layers:

- A **static layer** under `static/` that holds versioned, reusable content fragments (the default stance and red lines, and the response workflow with output format).
- A **dynamic layer** (this file plus `manifest.yaml`) that loads the core every time and reaches for the deeper response references or templates only when a step needs them.

Do not try to apply the response logic from memory or from this router. Always load fragments from disk as described below.

## Routing protocol

Follow these four steps every time the skill is invoked.

### 1. Load the manifest and the core layer

Read [manifest.yaml](manifest.yaml). Then read every file listed under `always_load`:

- `static/core/stance.md` — the editor-facing purpose, the default stance, the red lines, and the source hierarchy that apply to every response job.
- `static/core/workflow.md` — accepted inputs, the revision correspondence workflow, and the output package format.

### 2. No content axis — identify mode and language inline

Unlike nature-writing or nature-figure, nature-response has no fragment axis. Its variation is identified at runtime, not by loading different content bodies:

- **task mode** — `draft` / `audit` / `revise` / `triage-only` / `cover-letter` / `revision-package` / `latex-template` / `appeal-like`.
- **decision type** — minor revision, major revision, revise-and-resubmit, transfer after review, or unclear.
- **user language** — if the user writes Chinese, also produce the 中文核对 block.

Use `references/intake-and-routing.md` to fix the task mode, minimum inputs, and readiness state before drafting. Route appeal-like cases separately; do not draft an appeal as the default path.

### 3. Run the workflow

Follow the workflow in `core/workflow.md`: if the user pasted a journal email, first parse manuscript metadata, decision type, editor instructions, reviewer reports, required files, and deadlines from the email; identify mode and decision type; extract editor instructions (IDs `E.1`) then reviewer comments (`R1.1`, `R2.1`) when present; classify each item by response action and independently verified work status; build a strategy summary; draft point-by-point responses and/or a revision cover letter; map every claimed change to a manuscript location or explicit placeholder; mark changed manuscript text in red on a backed-up copy when editing; format quoted revised manuscript text in the response letter in italics; start each new reviewer response on a new page in LaTeX/print-oriented outputs; flag missing author input; run QA; and derive package readiness from the per-item statuses and blocking state.

Never invent experiments, citations, line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, editor instructions, or manuscript changes. Mark anything the author must supply as `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.

### 4. Reach for references only when needed

The files under `references/` and `templates/` are deep resources, not defaults. Open them on demand per the `references.on_demand` table in the manifest — for example `references/comment-taxonomy.md` to classify comments, `references/action-mapping.md` for tracker fields, `references/tone-and-stance.md` for disagreement wording, `references/difficult-cases.md` for impossible experiments / conflicting reviewers / appeal-like cases, `references/chinese-author-alignment.md` for Chinese author notes, `references/latex-templates.md` for `.tex` cover/response/redline outputs, and `references/qa-checklist.md` before finalizing.

## Why this split

- The static layer is versioned and reviewable; the core stays small for a normal response.
- The dynamic layer keeps each invocation cheap: the difficult-case, taxonomy, and QA depth load only when a step needs them.
- The router itself is short on purpose. Update fragments and references, not this file, when adding scope.
- This structure mirrors `nature-writing`, `nature-polishing`, `nature-reader`, `nature-paper2ppt`, `nature-figure`, and `nature-citation`.