Revision management

Skill sokolmarek/researcher/skills/revision-management

Plan and carry out the manuscript edits a review round demands, and track them across sections. Triggers: revise paper, address comments, reviewer asked, revision round, tracked changes, manage revisions across sections, plan the revision work, latexdiff between the submitted and revised manuscript. It changes the paper itself; the reply document that answers each reviewer is response-to-reviewers. Generates tracked changes in LaTeX (changes package or latexdiff); Word tracked changes are planned, not implemented.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add sokolmarek/researcher --skill revision-management

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

3 stars3 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.

SKILL.md

5.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Revision Management

Parse reviewer comments and orchestrate manuscript revisions with full traceability.

Workflow

Ingest reviewer comments from any supported format:
- Plain text or markdown pasted directly
- PDF review report (extract text)
- Word document with inline comments (parse comment anchors)
- Structured review from the peer-review skill (manuscript/reviews/review-R*.md)
Parse and number every discrete reviewer comment:
- Assign identifiers: R1.C1 (Reviewer 1, Comment 1), R2.C3, etc.
- Preserve original wording exactly (quote verbatim in the revision log)
- Group by reviewer, then by section if reviewer organized that way
Categorize each comment into one of four priority levels:

Category	Criteria	Action
Must-address	Methodological flaw, missing data, factual error, major logic gap	Revise immediately; explain change in response
Should-address	Clarity issue, suggested analysis, minor structural concern	Revise unless strong reason not to; explain either way
Optional	Stylistic preference, minor wording suggestion, nice-to-have	Revise if easy; acknowledge in response
Out-of-scope	Requests new experiments beyond scope, contradicts other reviewers	Do not revise; provide diplomatic justification

Create revision roadmap in manuscript/revisions/roadmap-R{N}.md:

# Revision Roadmap: Round {N}

## Reviewer 1
| ID | Comment Summary | Category | Target Section | Action |
|----|----------------|----------|---------------|--------|
| R1.C1 | Missing baseline comparison | Must-address | results.tex | Add Table 3 |
| R1.C2 | Unclear notation in Eq. 2 | Should-address | methods.tex | Rewrite paragraph |

## Reviewer 2
...

Apply revisions to manuscript files, one comment at a time:
- Edit the relevant .tex or .md section file
- After each edit, record what changed and why in the revision log
Generate tracked-changes output:

LaTeX Tracked Changes

Use the changes package (\added{}, \deleted{}, \replaced{}) with author labels
Alternatively, produce a latexdiff output comparing manuscript-R{N-1}/ to current
Color scheme: blue for additions, red with strikethrough for deletions
Compile-check both clean and tracked-changes PDFs by running scripts/latex-compile.py (or latex-compile.sh on POSIX), which uses whichever TeX engine is installed (tectonic recommended, or latexmk / pdflatex from TeX Live, MiKTeX, or MacTeX)

Word Tracked Changes (planned, not implemented)

Word revision marks (insertions, deletions, moves) and comment annotations linking back to reviewer comment IDs are specified in templates/word/article-imrad.md, but templates/word/build-docx.js does not generate them. It builds a clean IMRaD article from sections/*.md and nothing more. Never tell the user a tracked-changes DOCX is available; offer the LaTeX tracked-changes path above, or a clean DOCX plus the revision log as the record of what changed.

Revision Log

Maintain manuscript/revisions/log-R{N}.md linking every change to its source:

# Revision Log: Round {N}

| Comment ID | File Changed | Lines | Change Description |
|-----------|-------------|-------|-------------------|
| R1.C1 | results.tex | 45-62 | Added baseline comparison table |
| R1.C2 | methods.tex | 23-28 | Clarified notation for loss function |
| R2.C1 | introduction.tex | 10-15 | Expanded motivation paragraph |

Multi-Round Support

Support rounds R1, R2, R3 (and beyond if needed)
Each round gets its own roadmap and log in manuscript/revisions/
When starting R2, load R1 review and previous roadmap for context
Track cumulative changes across rounds
Flag comments that repeat from earlier rounds (reviewer unsatisfied)

Rebuttal Strategy Suggestions

When a reviewer comment is categorized as out-of-scope or appears unfair:

Suggest diplomatic language that acknowledges the concern
Provide evidence-based justification for not making the change
Reference literature or methodology standards that support the current approach
Never dismiss a reviewer; always thank them and explain reasoning
Flag genuinely incorrect reviewer claims with citations to correct information

After Revision

Run post-draft-integrity hook to validate cross-references and citations
Suggest running /researcher:review-paper in re-review mode to self-check
Remind user to prepare response-to-reviewers document next
Report summary: number of comments addressed, deferred, and out-of-scope