agentsclimarketplace

Nature response

Skill aiskillstore/marketplace/skills/yuan1z0825/nature-response

Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 reviewer. Also trigger on general peer-review response needs during academic writing/revision even without the word "Nature", such as replying to reviewers for any journal, writing a rebuttal/response letter, handling revision comments, and Chinese phrasings like 回复审稿人、审稿回复、返修、 修改稿回复、写rebuttal、回应审稿意见、应对审稿.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add aiskillstore/marketplace --skill nature-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

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.

SKILL.md

4.3 KB, 738 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

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 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. 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 ten-step 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 modedraft / audit / revise / triage-only / 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 ten-step workflow in core/workflow.md: identify mode and decision type, extract editor instructions (IDs E.1) then reviewer comments (R1.1, R2.1), classify each item, build a strategy summary, draft point-by-point responses from the preserved comments, map every claimed change to a manuscript location or an explicit placeholder, flag missing author input, run QA, and return the package with a readiness 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/ are deep references, 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, 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.

What ships with it: 24 files

98.2 KB alongside SKILL.md

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most review quality skills give in 738 tokens

Counted across 1,048 of the 1,783 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Ask questions one at a timein 81 of 1048, across 64 files
  • Provide a recommended answer for each questionin 73 of 1048, across 50 files
  • Explore the codebase instead of asking answerable questionsin 66 of 1048, across 42 files
  • Resolve dependencies between decisions one-by-onein 42 of 1048, across 17 files
  • Interview the user relentlessly about the planin 38 of 1048, across 13 files
  • Order findings by severityin 31 of 1048
  • Resolve each branch of the decision treein 27 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Run a grilling sessionin 26 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Update CONTEXT.md immediately when a term is resolvedin 26 of 1048, across 11 files
  • Propose precise canonical terms for vague languagein 25 of 1048, across 7 files
  • Create documentation files lazilyin 24 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Assign severity to every findingin 24 of 1048

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,871. 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.