Skip to the rows

agentsclimarketplace

Engineering response

Skill 169884902hzl/engineering-paper-skills/skills/engineering-response

Evidence-bound Codex skills for engineering paper writing, manuscript audit, figure/table claims, reviewer response, and validation.

Install

npx -y skills add 169884902hzl/engineering-paper-skills --skill engineering-response

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Draft, audit, or revise English response letters and revision plans for engineering papers from advisor, senior-author, reviewer, or editor comments. Use when the user provides comments, decision letters, rebuttal notes, revision drafts, or asks how to respond, what to revise, how to classify comments, how to avoid over-editing, or how to map each comment to manuscript changes.

SKILL.md

5.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Engineering Response

Use this skill to turn comments into traceable revision tasks and professional English responses.

Core Stance

Preserve each comment before responding.
Answer every concern or mark it as unresolved.
Map responses to manuscript evidence, a revision location, or explicit author input needed.
Do not invent experiments, line numbers, figures, citations, analyses, or manuscript changes.
Prefer concise, evidence-linked responses over defensive explanations.
When a comment reveals misunderstanding, first check whether the manuscript caused it.

Boundaries

Use this skill for comment triage, revision planning, rebuttal drafts, and response letters.
Use engineering-writing for manuscript section drafting after a comment has been turned into a concrete edit.
Use engineering-polishing for prose-only improvements.
Use engineering-figure-table for caption, figure, or table revisions.
Use engineering-validation before claiming a response package is complete or before using final line numbers.

When to Open Extra Files

File	Open when
references/comment-routing.md	Classifying advisor/reviewer comments and deciding which section to edit first
references/revision-tracker.md	Turning comments into concrete edit tasks with acceptance evidence
references/comment-resolution-worksheet.md	Building a full comment-to-action worksheet before editing
references/response-letter.md	Drafting point-by-point English responses
references/comment-examples.md	Handling common comments about experiments, methods, claims, captions, related work, conclusions, or abstract
references/tone-and-risk.md	Handling disagreement, impossible requests, missing experiments, or high-risk claims
references/contradictory-reviewer-strategy.md	Reviewers ask for conflicting detail, compression, experiments, or framing
references/partial-compliance-response.md	Authors can only partially satisfy a reviewer request
references/rebuttal-vs-revision-mode.md	Deciding whether the output is rebuttal, revision response, or camera-ready note
references/diff-verification.md	A response says a manuscript change, line number, experiment, figure, or table has already been added
references/examples.md	Needing concrete response tracker and reply examples
references/failure-modes.md	Handling false completed-change claims or impossible reviewer requests
../_shared/evidence-boundary.md	A response may claim unsupported experiments, citations, or edits
../_shared/citation-boundary.md	A response mentions added or corrected references
../_shared/citation-verification-workflow.md	A response relies on externally discovered references that have not passed a verification gate
../_shared/claim-strength.md	A response or manuscript change needs claim downgrading
../_shared/list-to-argument.md	A comment batch arrives as an unordered list
../_shared/output-mode.md	The user asks for response text only
../_shared/terminology-ledger.md	A comment asks for renaming methods, metrics, or categories

Workflow

Split editor/advisor/reviewer comments into stable IDs.
Classify each comment by type, severity, section, and missing input.
Identify the real complaint, not just the surface wording.
Choose revise, defer with reason, or no change with reason.
Define prohibited over-edit.
Define acceptance evidence and minimum verification.
Decide whether the mode is rebuttal, revision response, camera-ready note, or internal revision plan.
If the response claims completed changes, run the diff-verification gate.
Draft the response only after the change or placeholder is clear. If the change is planned but not done, draft a plan or author-input note, not a final completed-change response.
Run completeness and factuality checks before calling the package ready.

Default Output

Response strategy summary
- Package status:
- Main risks:
- Response mode:
- Validation needed before final response:

Comment-response tracker
| ID | Original comment | Type | Severity | Real complaint | First target | Second target | Action | Evidence/change needed | Prohibited over-edit | Acceptance evidence | Verification | Line-number status | Status |

Allowed status values: `Done with evidence`, `Planned`,
`Needs author input`, `Defer with reason`, `No change with reason`, and
`Not supported`.

Draft response
[English point-by-point response]

Unverified items
- line numbers:
- experiments:
- citations:
- figures/tables:

Revision checklist
- ...

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.