Requirements
- Target platform
- OpenClaw
- Install method
- Manual import
- Extraction
- Extract archive
- Prerequisites
- OpenClaw
- Primary doc
- SKILL.md
Tencent SkillHub ยท Content Creation
Peer Review Response Drafter
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger when user mentions "reviewer comments", "response letter", "peer review", "revise and r...
skill openclawclawhub Free
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger when user mentions "reviewer comments", "response letter", "peer review", "revise and r...
โฌ 0 downloads โ
0 stars Unverified but indexed
Install for OpenClaw
Quick setup
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.
- Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup.
Package facts
- Download mode
- Yavira redirect
- Package format
- ZIP package
- Source platform
- Tencent SkillHub
- What's included
- requirements.txt, SKILL.md, scripts/main.py, references/response_templates.md, references/tone_guide.md
Validation
- Use the Yavira download entry.
- Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.
- Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets.
Install with your agent
Agent handoff
Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract it into a folder your agent can access.
- Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder.
New install
I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete.
Upgrade existing
I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run.
Trust & source
Release facts
- Source
- Tencent SkillHub
- Verification
- Indexed source record
- Version
- 1.0.0
Provenance
- Publisher
- AIPOCH-AI
- Source page
- View original listing
- Canonical URL
- Open canonical page
Documentation
Peer Review Response Drafter
Assist researchers in crafting professional, polite, and effective responses to peer reviewer comments for academic journal submissions.
Overview
This skill parses reviewer comments, drafts structured responses, and adjusts tone to ensure: Professional and courteous language Clear point-by-point addressing of concerns Constructive framing of disagreements Consistent academic writing style
When to Use
Responding to peer reviewer comments after paper revision Preparing author response letters for journal resubmission Addressing major/minor revision requirements Drafting rebuttal letters for conference submissions Converting informal notes into formal response language
Step 1: Parse Input
Collect and structure the following: Reviewer comments: Original text from reviewers (often numbered/sectioned) Manuscript context: Title, journal name, revision round (if applicable) Author changes: Brief notes on what was modified in response to each comment Tone preference: Formal academic / diplomatic / assertive (default: diplomatic)
Step 2: Structure Response Letter
Standard academic response letter format: Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript titled "[Title]" submitted to [Journal]. We have carefully addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is our point-by-point response to each reviewer's comments. Reviewer #1: [Numbered responses] Reviewer #2: [Numbered responses] ... Sincerely, [Authors]
Step 3: Draft Individual Responses
For each reviewer comment, generate a response containing: Acknowledgment: Thank the reviewer for the observation Action taken: Describe the change made (if applicable) Location indicator: Page/line number where change appears Optional rationale: Brief explanation if no change was made Response Templates Accepting a suggestion: Comment: The methodology section lacks detail on data preprocessing. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have expanded the methodology section to include detailed descriptions of data preprocessing steps, including normalization, outlier removal, and feature selection procedures (Page 5, Lines 120-135). Partial acceptance with modification: Comment: The authors should use Method X instead of Method Y. Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. While Method X is indeed widely used, we found that Method Y is more appropriate for our specific dataset due to [brief rationale]. However, we have added a comparative discussion of both methods in the revised manuscript (Page 8, Lines 200-210) to acknowledge this alternative approach. Politely declining: Comment: The authors should remove Figure 3 as it seems redundant. Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Upon careful consideration, we believe Figure 3 provides essential visual support for the key finding discussed in Section 4.2. To enhance clarity, we have revised the figure caption to better emphasize its unique contribution (Page 10, Figure 3 caption).
Step 4: Tone Adjustment
Adjust language based on context: ToneUse CaseExample PhrasingDiplomaticGeneral revisions"We thank..." / "We appreciate..." / "We have revised..."AssertiveDefending methodology"We respectfully note..." / "Our approach is justified because..."GratefulMajor improvements"We are grateful for..." / "This significantly improved..."
Input Format
Accept multiple input formats: Copy-pasted reviewer comments PDF extracted text Structured JSON with comment IDs Markdown with sections
Output Format
Returns a complete response letter with: Proper salutation and closing Numbered responses matching reviewer comments Inline citations to manuscript locations Professional academic tone throughout
Usage Example
User: Help me draft a response to these reviewer comments: Reviewer 1: 1. The introduction should better motivate the problem 2. Figure 2 is unclear 3. Have you considered Smith et al. 2023? My changes: 1. Added motivation paragraph 2. Redrew Figure 2 with clearer labels 3. Added citation and discussion Journal: Nature Communications
Parameters
ParameterTypeRequiredDefaultDescription--interactiveflagNo-Interactive mode: Guided wizard with prompts (uses input()). Recommended for first-time users or complex responses--input-filestrNo-Path to reviewer comments file (automation mode)--outputstrNo-Output file path for response letter--tonestrNo"diplomatic"Response tone: "diplomatic", "formal", or "assertive"--formatstrNo"markdown"Output format: "markdown", "plain_text", or "latex"--include-diffboolNotrueWhether to summarize changes made Usage Modes: Interactive Mode: Use --interactive for guided setup with prompts (recommended for first-time users) File Mode (Recommended for automation): Use --input-file with pre-prepared reviewer comments
Technical Notes
Difficulty: High - Requires understanding of academic norms, context-aware tone adjustment, and nuanced handling of criticism Limitations: Does not verify factual accuracy of responses; human review required for technical content Safety: No external API calls; processes text locally
References
references/response_templates.md - Common response patterns references/tone_guide.md - Academic tone guidelines references/examples/ - Sample response letters
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing, verify: Every reviewer comment has a corresponding response Responses are numbered/lettered consistently with comments All changes are referenced with page/line numbers Disagreements are framed constructively No defensive or confrontational language Professional tone maintained throughout
Risk Assessment
Risk IndicatorAssessmentLevelCode ExecutionPython/R scripts executed locallyMediumNetwork AccessNo external API callsLowFile System AccessRead input files, write output filesMediumInstruction TamperingStandard prompt guidelinesLowData ExposureOutput files saved to workspaceLow
Security Checklist
No hardcoded credentials or API keys No unauthorized file system access (../) Output does not expose sensitive information Prompt injection protections in place Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal) Output directory restricted to workspace Script execution in sandboxed environment Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed) Dependencies audited
Prerequisites
# Python dependencies pip install -r requirements.txt
Success Metrics
Successfully executes main functionality Output meets quality standards Handles edge cases gracefully Performance is acceptable
Test Cases
Basic Functionality: Standard input โ Expected output Edge Case: Invalid input โ Graceful error handling Performance: Large dataset โ Acceptable processing time
Lifecycle Status
Current Stage: Draft Next Review Date: 2026-03-06 Known Issues: None Planned Improvements: Performance optimization Additional feature support
Category context
Writing, remixing, publishing, visual generation, and marketing content production.
Source: Tencent SkillHub
Largest current source with strong distribution and engagement signals.
Package contents
Included in package
3 Docs1 Scripts1 Files
- SKILL.md
- references/response_templates.md
- references/tone_guide.md
- scripts/main.py
- requirements.txt