Bioinformatics Reviewer Response
Use this skill to prepare traceable reviewer responses for bioinformatics manuscripts, especially when comments involve omics analysis, statistics, validation, reproducibility, or data availability.
Boundary
This skill does:
- segment editor and reviewer comments into an auditable tracker
- classify bioinformatics concerns and response actions
- draft professional point-by-point replies from supplied author actions and evidence
- flag when new analysis, evidence-pack updates, or author confirmation is needed
This skill does not:
- claim that analyses, validations, line edits, new figures, or citations were completed unless the user supplied them
- run the requested new analysis itself
- invent line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, reviewer IDs, or journal policy details
- use defensive or dismissive language
If a reviewer asks for new computation or database validation, route that action to bioinfo-evidence-orchestrator first, then draft the response after results are available.
When to open extra files
| File |
Open when |
| references/bio-reviewer-issue-taxonomy.md |
Classifying reviewer comments and mapping them to safe response actions |
Workflow
- Preserve comments. Keep each editor/reviewer point faithful and assign IDs such as
E.1, R1.1, R2.3.
- Classify issues. Identify statistics, batch effects, multiple testing, validation, reproducibility, data/code availability, biological interpretation, figures, or writing.
- Map action state. Use
completed, planned, not feasible with justification, clarification only, or AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
- Draft response strategy. Lead with changes and evidence; disagree only with a concise scientific reason.
- Cross-reference supplied materials. Use only provided line numbers, figure panels, tables, supplements, or manuscript changes.
- Run response QA. Every concern should have a response, action, and unresolved flag if needed.
Output format
Response strategy summary
- Decision type:
- Main bioinformatics risks:
- Recommended order:
Comment-response tracker
| ID | Reviewer concern | Bioinfo issue type | Proposed action | Evidence/change supplied | Missing input |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Draft point-by-point response
[editor-readable response]
Actions for bioinfo evidence layer
- ...
中文核对
- ...
1---2name: bio-reviewer-response3description: Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer responses for bioinformatics manuscripts. Use for 生信审稿回复, 逐点回复, 大修回复, reviewer质疑batch effect/FDR/外部验证/数据泄露/样本量/方法可复现. Do not claim analyses, revisions, citations, line numbers, figures, or validations were completed unless supplied by the author.4---56# Bioinformatics Reviewer Response78Use this skill to prepare traceable reviewer responses for bioinformatics manuscripts, especially when comments involve omics analysis, statistics, validation, reproducibility, or data availability.910## Boundary1112This skill does:1314- segment editor and reviewer comments into an auditable tracker15- classify bioinformatics concerns and response actions16- draft professional point-by-point replies from supplied author actions and evidence17- flag when new analysis, evidence-pack updates, or author confirmation is needed1819This skill does **not**:2021- claim that analyses, validations, line edits, new figures, or citations were completed unless the user supplied them22- run the requested new analysis itself23- invent line numbers, figure panels, supplementary items, reviewer IDs, or journal policy details24- use defensive or dismissive language2526If a reviewer asks for new computation or database validation, route that action to `bioinfo-evidence-orchestrator` first, then draft the response after results are available.2728## When to open extra files2930| File | Open when |31|---|---|32| [references/bio-reviewer-issue-taxonomy.md](references/bio-reviewer-issue-taxonomy.md) | Classifying reviewer comments and mapping them to safe response actions |3334## Workflow35361. **Preserve comments.** Keep each editor/reviewer point faithful and assign IDs such as `E.1`, `R1.1`, `R2.3`.372. **Classify issues.** Identify statistics, batch effects, multiple testing, validation, reproducibility, data/code availability, biological interpretation, figures, or writing.383. **Map action state.** Use `completed`, `planned`, `not feasible with justification`, `clarification only`, or `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.394. **Draft response strategy.** Lead with changes and evidence; disagree only with a concise scientific reason.405. **Cross-reference supplied materials.** Use only provided line numbers, figure panels, tables, supplements, or manuscript changes.416. **Run response QA.** Every concern should have a response, action, and unresolved flag if needed.4243## Output format4445```text46Response strategy summary47- Decision type:48- Main bioinformatics risks:49- Recommended order:5051Comment-response tracker52| ID | Reviewer concern | Bioinfo issue type | Proposed action | Evidence/change supplied | Missing input |53|---|---|---|---|---|---|5455Draft point-by-point response56[editor-readable response]5758Actions for bioinfo evidence layer59- ...6061中文核对62- ...63```
Teng-bio