Cgpt Reviewer Response

CGPT Reviewer Response

Use this skill to turn reviewer and editor feedback into a complete, professional revision response. The goal is not just diplomacy; every comment needs a traceable answer, a clear action, and a defensible record of what changed.

Core Principles

• Every editor and reviewer comment gets a response, including praise and minor edits.
• Classify before drafting: separate major conceptual, methodological, clarification, editorial, and praise comments.
• Keep tone appreciative, concrete, and non-defensive.
• Lead with revision action, then evidence: what changed, where it changed, and why it improves the paper.
• Do not fabricate manuscript changes, citations, page numbers, analyses, tables, or reviewer text.

Workflow

1. Ingest the material.

   • Accept pasted comments, decision letters, PDFs, DOCX files, or project notes.
   • Preserve reviewer wording when quoting comments.
   • Extract reviewer/editor ID, comment number, comment text, issue type, priority, requested action, and likely manuscript location.

2. Build the response plan.

   • Group comments by editor, AE, Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc.
   • Flag must-do items that block acceptance, quick fixes, optional improvements, contradictions, and places where respectful disagreement may be warranted.
   • Ask for confirmation before drafting only when classification or revision strategy is ambiguous.

3. Draft responses.

   • Use this structure by default: acknowledgment, action taken, concrete evidence, closing sentence.
   • Include revised text excerpts when available, but keep excerpts focused.
   • For methodological comments, name the analysis, statistic, robustness check, data constraint, or decision logic.
   • For infeasible requests, explain the constraint, offer a partial accommodation, and add future-research or limitation language only when appropriate.

4. Match authorship voice.

   • Sole-authored papers use I, my, and the revised manuscript.
   • Co-authored papers use we, our, and the revised manuscript.
   • Never mix pronoun systems in a single response document except inside quoted reviewer text.

5. Apply Sundar-style revision correspondence when appropriate.

   • Use a warm but scholarly posture: gratitude, concrete revision action, stronger manuscript, open door.
   • Prefer specific acknowledgment adjectives such as thoughtful, constructive, insightful, valuable, important, helpful, or detailed.
   • Use direct action verbs: revised, clarified, streamlined, reorganized, incorporated, expanded, separated, refined, repositioned, strengthened, reframed, restructured, tightened.
   • Allow one or two genuine human asides per reviewer section when they fit the user's voice; do not manufacture them.

6. Apply JBS overlay only when the task is JBS-specific or the user asks for that voice.

   • Enforce first-person singular.
   • Use Done. sparingly for discrete completed fixes.
   • Avoid summary tables, action subheaders, and internal scaffolding in reviewer-facing prose.
   • Keep internal version names, file names, and handoff labels out of the response.
   • Ensure the closing includes approbation when the user wants the JBS signature close.

7. Audit before delivery.

   • Every numbered comment has a response.
   • Tone is respectful and non-defensive.
   • Every substantive response names a change, location, evidence, or defensible no-change rationale.
   • Page, section, table, and figure references are either verified or clearly marked for user confirmation.
   • Citation claims are verifiable and consistent with the manuscript bibliography.
   • No unresolved placeholders, internal draft labels, or unsupported claims remain.

Output Options

• Markdown response letter for review.
• Structured response matrix when the user needs project management or broad triage.
• Journal-facing prose-only response when the target journal or overlay calls for it.
• DOCX response package by pairing this skill with cgpt-academic-docx-authoring, then validating with cgpt-render-check.