Respond reviewer

/respond-reviewer

This engine runs the classify-and-dispatch orchestration shape: one reviewer letter in, N labelled comments out, each routed to the specialist that should answer it, then re-evaluated by @supervisor before being assembled into a single rebuttal letter. It is the proof that OMCR can hand-off between specialists under supervisor control — Phase 2's harder counterpart to /iterate-revision's single-loop pattern.

If you are reading this because Claude Code's skill auto-discovery surfaced it: invoke it via /respond-reviewer <review-letter-path>. Do not edit the manuscript, rebuttals.json, or .claude/omcr-state/ by hand while a run is in flight.

When this skill is invoked, immediately execute the workflow below. Do not only restate or summarize these instructions back to the user.

Signature

/respond-reviewer <review-letter-path> [--manuscript <root>] [--draft-only] [--format md|latex]

Flag	Default	Purpose
--manuscript	paper.json.manuscript_root	Manuscript root the dispatched agents may edit. Falls back to paper.json.manuscript_root; if neither is set, phase 01 aborts.
--draft-only	false	Dispatch all per-comment responses but skip every manuscript edit. The rebuttal letter is the only artifact written.
--format	latex	Output format for the assembled rebuttal letter. latex → rebuttal-letter.tex; md → rebuttal-letter.md. Input format is auto-detected from the letter extension (Phase 2 decision §2).

Examples:

• /respond-reviewer reviews/r1-comments.md — defaults; auto-detect MD input, write LaTeX out.
• /respond-reviewer reviews/r1-comments.tex --manuscript paper/ — LaTeX in, LaTeX out, explicit manuscript root.
• /respond-reviewer reviews/r2-comments.md --draft-only — read + classify + draft responses, but do not touch the manuscript.
• /respond-reviewer reviews/r1-comments.txt --format md — markdown out for a journal that submits rebuttals through a web form.

The dispatch shape

phase 01 — parse-letter        (auto-detect format → structured comments list with stable IDs)
phase 02 — classify            (@supervisor labels every comment: prose|analysis|citation|clarification|structural)
phase 03 — dispatch-per-comment (route each non-structural label to its specialist; collect structural into user-attention)
phase 04 — aggregate           (assemble the rebuttal letter, one section per comment_id, in requested --format)
phase 05 — evaluate            (@supervisor re-reads the draft rebuttal, flags weak responses; verdict per comment)
phase 06 — finalize            (write the letter to disk, append rebuttals.json, log, surface user-attention list)

Phases 01 and 02 are inspect phases (one supervisor dispatch in 02). Phase 03 is the fan-out phase — one dispatch per non-structural comment. Phases 04, 05, 06 are synthesis + record — the supervisor revisits only the assembled letter, not every comment.

Unlike /iterate-revision, there is no loop body here — /respond-reviewer is a one-shot pipeline. The "iteration" is per-comment, but each comment is dispatched once. If a per-comment response is weak, phase 05 marks it deferred or disputed in rebuttals.json for the user to address; the engine does not auto-re-dispatch.

Phase execution

Execute phases sequentially. For each phase, read the linked file and follow its instructions exactly.

1. Phase 1 — Parse the letter. Read phases/01-parse-letter.md.
2. Phase 2 — Classify. Read phases/02-classify.md.
3. Phase 3 — Dispatch per comment. Read phases/03-dispatch-per-comment.md.
4. Phase 4 — Aggregate. Read phases/04-aggregate.md.
5. Phase 5 — Evaluate. Read phases/05-evaluate.md.
6. Phase 6 — Finalize. Read phases/06-finalize.md.

Phases 03 → 04 → 05 form the synthesis sequence — each runs once per engine invocation. The classify-and-dispatch shape does not loop, by design (Phase 2 decision §5 — engines are leaves; the per-comment dispatch is the "iteration").

Composition

This engine imports the following primitives from skills/orchestrate/:

• phases/01-state-read.md — read paper.json (phase 01 of this engine, for manuscript context + section paths) and reviews.json (phase 03 of this engine, for any prior review history on the affected section). Also reads the new rebuttals.json state file.
• phases/02-dispatch.md — dispatch @supervisor (phases 02 and 05), @paper-writer (phase 03 for prose / clarification labels), @analysis-implementer (phase 03 for analysis labels), @literature-curator (phase 03 for citation labels). Each dispatch is one Agent-tool invocation with the persona body inlined.
• phases/03-evaluate.md — used in phase 05 to apply an engine-supplied verdict rule per comment (one of addressed | deferred | disputed). The orchestrate primitive's severity-threshold family does not fit the per-comment shape — /respond-reviewer uses the escape hatch and computes the verdict in phase 05 itself.
• phases/04-loop.md — not the iteration driver for this engine (there is no loop). Phase 06 still uses the primitive's _run-log.jsonl append pattern for the start + end + summary records. The loop primitive's max_iter machinery is effectively max_iter = 1 here.

This engine does not invent its own state-read, dispatch, or log-append mechanics. If you find yourself replicating that logic inside a phase file, you're solving the wrong problem — fix the primitive, do not fork it.

State files this engine touches

File	Read or write?	Purpose
paper.json	read	Resolve manuscript_root fallback, section paths, current section statuses. Write-back only if a per-comment dispatch flipped a section's status (e.g., @paper-writer revising a section creates a new revising status).
reviews.json	read	Look up prior reviewer issues on affected sections (helpful context for the per-comment dispatch).
rebuttals.json	append (new file)	One entry per run. Schema in develop/example-state/README.md.
_run-log.jsonl	append	Start + end + summary records via the loop primitive's pattern.

rebuttals.json is the new state file this engine introduces. Its empty form is { "schema_version": "1", "rebuttals": [] }. The full populated schema lives in the example-state README.

Classification taxonomy

Phase 02 dispatches @supervisor to label every comment as exactly one of:

Label	Dispatched agent	What it covers
prose	@paper-writer	Rewording, hedging, clarity, tone, sentence restructuring. The reviewer wants the text to say roughly the same thing better.
analysis	@analysis-implementer	New analysis, robustness check, additional statistical test, re-run with different parameters, figure redraw (figure ID flagged for user follow-up).
citation	@literature-curator	Missing reference, prior-work coverage gap, request to compare against a specific paper.
clarification	@paper-writer	Small text addition or clarification that doesn't require new content — typically a sentence or two added.
structural	none — user attention	Framing change, scope decision, section reorganization, methodological pivot. These are scientific judgment calls that only a human can make.

The mapping clarification → @paper-writer is intentional — paper-writer is the only agent that produces manuscript prose, so any label that resolves to "add a sentence" is its responsibility. prose and clarification differ in scope (reword vs. add) but not in dispatched agent.

Ethical gate — structural is human-only

Comments labeled structural are never dispatched. Phase 03 explicitly skips them, and phase 06 surfaces them to the user as a "user attention required" list. This is the project's stated ethical posture: comments that require a framing or scope decision should not be auto-answered by an agent.

If @supervisor is uncertain between structural and another label, it must default to structural. Phase 02 instructs it to do exactly that.

Engines are leaves — figure redraws route to @analysis-implementer

Per Phase 2 decision §5, /respond-reviewer may not invoke another engine. If a comment requests a figure redraw:

1. Phase 02 labels it analysis (not structural, not its own label).
2. Phase 03 dispatches @analysis-implementer with the figure ID in the brief. The implementer may produce a partial response — e.g., "the figure needs /figure-bake fig3 to redraw" — but does not run the redraw itself.
3. Phase 06 appends suggested_next_steps: ["/figure-bake <fig-id>"] to that comment's entry in rebuttals.json and surfaces it in the final summary.

The user (not the engine) decides whether to run /figure-bake. This matches the structural → user-attention posture: actions with downstream cost get a human ACK.

Verdict semantics

Per-comment verdicts (set in phase 05, written to rebuttals.json.rebuttals[*].comments[*].verdict):

Verdict	Meaning
addressed	The per-comment dispatch produced a response that materially answers the reviewer's concern, and the supervisor confirms the response matches the actions taken.
deferred	The dispatch produced a response, but it points to a follow-up the user must run (e.g., /figure-bake, manual --allow-tbd clearance, structural decision). Recorded so the user can see what is pending.
disputed	The supervisor flagged a weak or misleading response (e.g., "we have added X" without X actually being present in the manuscript). The user must rewrite or reject the response.

There is no BLOCKED verdict at the per-comment level — that is a run-level state. Run-level verdicts (one of DONE | BLOCKED | HALT) are computed by phase 06 from the comment-level distribution:

Comment distribution	Run verdict
All comments addressed, no structural	DONE
Any disputed, OR at least one structural flagged	HALT (user attention required)
Dispatch error mid-run	BLOCKED (partial state preserved)

CONTINUE never appears — /respond-reviewer is single-pass.

Cost model

Each run dispatches: 1 supervisor (classify) + N specialists (one per non-structural comment) + 1 supervisor (re-evaluate) = 2 + N Agent-tool calls. For a typical 10-comment letter with ~7 non-structural comments, that's 9 dispatches. With cost_estimate_tokens: 60000 as the frontmatter upper bound, the engine accommodates letters up to ~15 dispatches without overrunning the /supervisor-drive budget gate.

The cost_estimate_tokens frontmatter field is a coarse constant for Phase 3 autonomous-mode scheduling (Phase 3 §6 — rolling-median actuals add the empirical correction on top). Actuals land in _run-log.jsonl post-hoc per Phase 0 decision §6.

Per-comment dispatch is dominated by the persona body inline (each agent body is ~200–500 lines) plus the comment text + relevant manuscript context (~1–3K tokens of surrounding section content per comment). Letters with many cross-section comments compound this — the engine does not auto-trim.

What this engine does NOT do

• Does not invoke another engine. Engines are leaves (Phase 2 decision §5). Figure-redraw comments are routed to @analysis-implementer with a suggested_next_steps hint pointing at /figure-bake — the user runs it, not the engine.
• Does not auto-dispatch structural comments. Always surfaced to user attention (the ethical gate).
• Does not loop. One comment, one dispatch, one verdict. If the response is disputed in phase 05, the user re-runs the engine after deciding what to fix — the engine does not auto-retry weak responses.
• Does not commit to git between dispatches. There is no on_iter_end hook here. If --draft-only is set, the engine never edits manuscript files at all.
• Does not rewrite the reviewer letter. The original is read-only; the rebuttal letter is a separate artifact.
• Does not invent citekeys or BibTeX entries. The @literature-curator dispatch handles citation labels and is the only agent that writes to references.bib; the engine just records the actions taken.
• Does not push to Overleaf. Manuscript-scaffold owns push flows.

Re-running policy

• Same review letter re-run (no state change) → phase 01 detects a prior entry in rebuttals.json whose review_letter path matches and appends a new run rather than overwriting. The user sees both entries in the final state; the most recent is the canonical one.
• Mid-run --draft-only toggle → must be set at invocation time. The engine does not promote --draft-only runs to write-back runs; the user re-invokes without the flag.
• BLOCKED run → phase 06 leaves the partial rebuttal entry in rebuttals.json with the comments processed so far. The user re-runs after fixing whatever caused the BLOCKED (typically a dispatch error or unreadable manuscript path); the new run is a fresh entry.

See also

• ../orchestrate/SKILL.md — the 4 primitives this engine composes.
• ../../wiki/Orchestration-Model.md — public pattern doc.
• ../../develop/example-state/README.md — full rebuttals.json schema reference + populated example.
• ../../develop/phase-2-additional-engines.md — design doc for this engine ("Engine 3 — /respond-reviewer").
• ../../develop/phase-2-decisions.md — locked decisions §2 (LaTeX out, --format md) and §5 (engines are leaves).
• ../iterate-revision/SKILL.md — pattern reference. Voice and structure of this skill mirror that engine.