{
  "schemaVersion": "1.0",
  "item": {
    "slug": "peer-review-response-drafter",
    "name": "Peer Review Response Drafter",
    "source": "tencent",
    "type": "skill",
    "category": "内容创作",
    "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/AIPOCH-AI/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/AIPOCH-AI/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw"
  },
  "install": {
    "downloadMode": "redirect",
    "downloadUrl": "/downloads/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=peer-review-response-drafter",
    "sourcePlatform": "tencent",
    "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw",
    "installMethod": "Manual import",
    "extraction": "Extract archive",
    "prerequisites": [
      "OpenClaw"
    ],
    "packageFormat": "ZIP package",
    "includedAssets": [
      "requirements.txt",
      "SKILL.md",
      "scripts/main.py",
      "references/response_templates.md",
      "references/tone_guide.md"
    ],
    "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md",
    "quickSetup": [
      "Download the package from Yavira.",
      "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.",
      "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup."
    ],
    "agentAssist": {
      "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.",
      "steps": [
        "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."
      ],
      "prompts": [
        {
          "label": "New install",
          "body": "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."
        },
        {
          "label": "Upgrade existing",
          "body": "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."
        }
      ]
    },
    "sourceHealth": {
      "source": "tencent",
      "status": "healthy",
      "reason": "direct_download_ok",
      "recommendedAction": "download",
      "checkedAt": "2026-04-23T16:43:11.935Z",
      "expiresAt": "2026-04-30T16:43:11.935Z",
      "httpStatus": 200,
      "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=4claw-imageboard",
      "contentType": "application/zip",
      "probeMethod": "head",
      "details": {
        "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=4claw-imageboard",
        "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"4claw-imageboard-1.0.1.zip\"",
        "redirectLocation": null,
        "bodySnippet": null
      },
      "scope": "source",
      "summary": "Source download looks usable.",
      "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this source.",
      "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw",
      "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/peer-review-response-drafter"
    },
    "validation": {
      "installChecklist": [
        "Use the Yavira download entry.",
        "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.",
        "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets."
      ],
      "postInstallChecks": [
        "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.",
        "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.",
        "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete."
      ]
    },
    "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/peer-review-response-drafter/agent",
    "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/peer-review-response-drafter/agent.json",
    "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/peer-review-response-drafter/agent.md"
  },
  "agentAssist": {
    "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.",
    "steps": [
      "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."
    ],
    "prompts": [
      {
        "label": "New install",
        "body": "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."
      },
      {
        "label": "Upgrade existing",
        "body": "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."
      }
    ]
  },
  "documentation": {
    "source": "clawhub",
    "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md",
    "sections": [
      {
        "title": "Peer Review Response Drafter",
        "body": "Assist researchers in crafting professional, polite, and effective responses to peer reviewer comments for academic journal submissions."
      },
      {
        "title": "Overview",
        "body": "This skill parses reviewer comments, drafts structured responses, and adjusts tone to ensure:\n\nProfessional and courteous language\nClear point-by-point addressing of concerns\nConstructive framing of disagreements\nConsistent academic writing style"
      },
      {
        "title": "When to Use",
        "body": "Responding to peer reviewer comments after paper revision\nPreparing author response letters for journal resubmission\nAddressing major/minor revision requirements\nDrafting rebuttal letters for conference submissions\nConverting informal notes into formal response language"
      },
      {
        "title": "Step 1: Parse Input",
        "body": "Collect and structure the following:\n\nReviewer comments: Original text from reviewers (often numbered/sectioned)\nManuscript context: Title, journal name, revision round (if applicable)\nAuthor changes: Brief notes on what was modified in response to each comment\nTone preference: Formal academic / diplomatic / assertive (default: diplomatic)"
      },
      {
        "title": "Step 2: Structure Response Letter",
        "body": "Standard academic response letter format:\n\nDear Editor and Reviewers,\n\nThank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript titled \n\"[Title]\" submitted to [Journal]. We have carefully addressed all \ncomments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is our \npoint-by-point response to each reviewer's comments.\n\nReviewer #1:\n[Numbered responses]\n\nReviewer #2:\n[Numbered responses]\n\n...\n\nSincerely,\n[Authors]"
      },
      {
        "title": "Step 3: Draft Individual Responses",
        "body": "For each reviewer comment, generate a response containing:\n\nAcknowledgment: Thank the reviewer for the observation\nAction taken: Describe the change made (if applicable)\nLocation indicator: Page/line number where change appears\nOptional rationale: Brief explanation if no change was made\n\nResponse Templates\n\nAccepting a suggestion:\n\nComment: The methodology section lacks detail on data preprocessing.\n\nResponse: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. \nWe have expanded the methodology section to include detailed \ndescriptions of data preprocessing steps, including normalization, \noutlier removal, and feature selection procedures (Page 5, Lines 120-135).\n\nPartial acceptance with modification:\n\nComment: The authors should use Method X instead of Method Y.\n\nResponse: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. While Method X \nis indeed widely used, we found that Method Y is more appropriate \nfor our specific dataset due to [brief rationale]. However, we have \nadded a comparative discussion of both methods in the revised \nmanuscript (Page 8, Lines 200-210) to acknowledge this alternative \napproach.\n\nPolitely declining:\n\nComment: The authors should remove Figure 3 as it seems redundant.\n\nResponse: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Upon careful \nconsideration, we believe Figure 3 provides essential visual \nsupport for the key finding discussed in Section 4.2. To enhance \nclarity, we have revised the figure caption to better emphasize \nits unique contribution (Page 10, Figure 3 caption)."
      },
      {
        "title": "Step 4: Tone Adjustment",
        "body": "Adjust language based on context:\n\nToneUse 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...\""
      },
      {
        "title": "Input Format",
        "body": "Accept multiple input formats:\n\nCopy-pasted reviewer comments\nPDF extracted text\nStructured JSON with comment IDs\nMarkdown with sections"
      },
      {
        "title": "Output Format",
        "body": "Returns a complete response letter with:\n\nProper salutation and closing\nNumbered responses matching reviewer comments\nInline citations to manuscript locations\nProfessional academic tone throughout"
      },
      {
        "title": "Usage Example",
        "body": "User: Help me draft a response to these reviewer comments:\n\nReviewer 1:\n1. The introduction should better motivate the problem\n2. Figure 2 is unclear\n3. Have you considered Smith et al. 2023?\n\nMy changes:\n1. Added motivation paragraph\n2. Redrew Figure 2 with clearer labels\n3. Added citation and discussion\n\nJournal: Nature Communications"
      },
      {
        "title": "Parameters",
        "body": "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\n\nUsage Modes:\n\nInteractive Mode: Use --interactive for guided setup with prompts (recommended for first-time users)\nFile Mode (Recommended for automation): Use --input-file with pre-prepared reviewer comments"
      },
      {
        "title": "Technical Notes",
        "body": "Difficulty: High - Requires understanding of academic norms, context-aware tone adjustment, and nuanced handling of criticism\nLimitations: Does not verify factual accuracy of responses; human review required for technical content\nSafety: No external API calls; processes text locally"
      },
      {
        "title": "References",
        "body": "references/response_templates.md - Common response patterns\nreferences/tone_guide.md - Academic tone guidelines\nreferences/examples/ - Sample response letters"
      },
      {
        "title": "Quality Checklist",
        "body": "Before finalizing, verify:\n\nEvery reviewer comment has a corresponding response\n Responses are numbered/lettered consistently with comments\n All changes are referenced with page/line numbers\n Disagreements are framed constructively\n No defensive or confrontational language\n Professional tone maintained throughout"
      },
      {
        "title": "Risk Assessment",
        "body": "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"
      },
      {
        "title": "Security Checklist",
        "body": "No hardcoded credentials or API keys\n No unauthorized file system access (../)\n Output does not expose sensitive information\n Prompt injection protections in place\n Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)\n Output directory restricted to workspace\n Script execution in sandboxed environment\n Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)\n Dependencies audited"
      },
      {
        "title": "Prerequisites",
        "body": "# Python dependencies\npip install -r requirements.txt"
      },
      {
        "title": "Success Metrics",
        "body": "Successfully executes main functionality\n Output meets quality standards\n Handles edge cases gracefully\n Performance is acceptable"
      },
      {
        "title": "Test Cases",
        "body": "Basic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output\nEdge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling\nPerformance: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time"
      },
      {
        "title": "Lifecycle Status",
        "body": "Current Stage: Draft\nNext Review Date: 2026-03-06\nKnown Issues: None\nPlanned Improvements:\n\nPerformance optimization\nAdditional feature support"
      }
    ],
    "body": "Peer Review Response Drafter\n\nAssist researchers in crafting professional, polite, and effective responses to peer reviewer comments for academic journal submissions.\n\nOverview\n\nThis skill parses reviewer comments, drafts structured responses, and adjusts tone to ensure:\n\nProfessional and courteous language\nClear point-by-point addressing of concerns\nConstructive framing of disagreements\nConsistent academic writing style\nWhen to Use\nResponding to peer reviewer comments after paper revision\nPreparing author response letters for journal resubmission\nAddressing major/minor revision requirements\nDrafting rebuttal letters for conference submissions\nConverting informal notes into formal response language\nWorkflow\nStep 1: Parse Input\n\nCollect and structure the following:\n\nReviewer comments: Original text from reviewers (often numbered/sectioned)\nManuscript context: Title, journal name, revision round (if applicable)\nAuthor changes: Brief notes on what was modified in response to each comment\nTone preference: Formal academic / diplomatic / assertive (default: diplomatic)\nStep 2: Structure Response Letter\n\nStandard academic response letter format:\n\nDear Editor and Reviewers,\n\nThank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript titled \n\"[Title]\" submitted to [Journal]. We have carefully addressed all \ncomments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is our \npoint-by-point response to each reviewer's comments.\n\nReviewer #1:\n[Numbered responses]\n\nReviewer #2:\n[Numbered responses]\n\n...\n\nSincerely,\n[Authors]\n\nStep 3: Draft Individual Responses\n\nFor each reviewer comment, generate a response containing:\n\nAcknowledgment: Thank the reviewer for the observation\nAction taken: Describe the change made (if applicable)\nLocation indicator: Page/line number where change appears\nOptional rationale: Brief explanation if no change was made\nResponse Templates\n\nAccepting a suggestion:\n\nComment: The methodology section lacks detail on data preprocessing.\n\nResponse: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. \nWe have expanded the methodology section to include detailed \ndescriptions of data preprocessing steps, including normalization, \noutlier removal, and feature selection procedures (Page 5, Lines 120-135).\n\n\nPartial acceptance with modification:\n\nComment: The authors should use Method X instead of Method Y.\n\nResponse: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. While Method X \nis indeed widely used, we found that Method Y is more appropriate \nfor our specific dataset due to [brief rationale]. However, we have \nadded a comparative discussion of both methods in the revised \nmanuscript (Page 8, Lines 200-210) to acknowledge this alternative \napproach.\n\n\nPolitely declining:\n\nComment: The authors should remove Figure 3 as it seems redundant.\n\nResponse: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Upon careful \nconsideration, we believe Figure 3 provides essential visual \nsupport for the key finding discussed in Section 4.2. To enhance \nclarity, we have revised the figure caption to better emphasize \nits unique contribution (Page 10, Figure 3 caption).\n\nStep 4: Tone Adjustment\n\nAdjust language based on context:\n\nTone\tUse Case\tExample Phrasing\nDiplomatic\tGeneral revisions\t\"We thank...\" / \"We appreciate...\" / \"We have revised...\"\nAssertive\tDefending methodology\t\"We respectfully note...\" / \"Our approach is justified because...\"\nGrateful\tMajor improvements\t\"We are grateful for...\" / \"This significantly improved...\"\nInput Format\n\nAccept multiple input formats:\n\nCopy-pasted reviewer comments\nPDF extracted text\nStructured JSON with comment IDs\nMarkdown with sections\nOutput Format\n\nReturns a complete response letter with:\n\nProper salutation and closing\nNumbered responses matching reviewer comments\nInline citations to manuscript locations\nProfessional academic tone throughout\nUsage Example\nUser: Help me draft a response to these reviewer comments:\n\nReviewer 1:\n1. The introduction should better motivate the problem\n2. Figure 2 is unclear\n3. Have you considered Smith et al. 2023?\n\nMy changes:\n1. Added motivation paragraph\n2. Redrew Figure 2 with clearer labels\n3. Added citation and discussion\n\nJournal: Nature Communications\n\nParameters\nParameter\tType\tRequired\tDefault\tDescription\n--interactive\tflag\tNo\t-\tInteractive mode: Guided wizard with prompts (uses input()). Recommended for first-time users or complex responses\n--input-file\tstr\tNo\t-\tPath to reviewer comments file (automation mode)\n--output\tstr\tNo\t-\tOutput file path for response letter\n--tone\tstr\tNo\t\"diplomatic\"\tResponse tone: \"diplomatic\", \"formal\", or \"assertive\"\n--format\tstr\tNo\t\"markdown\"\tOutput format: \"markdown\", \"plain_text\", or \"latex\"\n--include-diff\tbool\tNo\ttrue\tWhether to summarize changes made\n\nUsage Modes:\n\nInteractive Mode: Use --interactive for guided setup with prompts (recommended for first-time users)\nFile Mode (Recommended for automation): Use --input-file with pre-prepared reviewer comments\nTechnical Notes\nDifficulty: High - Requires understanding of academic norms, context-aware tone adjustment, and nuanced handling of criticism\nLimitations: Does not verify factual accuracy of responses; human review required for technical content\nSafety: No external API calls; processes text locally\nReferences\nreferences/response_templates.md - Common response patterns\nreferences/tone_guide.md - Academic tone guidelines\nreferences/examples/ - Sample response letters\nQuality Checklist\n\nBefore finalizing, verify:\n\n Every reviewer comment has a corresponding response\n Responses are numbered/lettered consistently with comments\n All changes are referenced with page/line numbers\n Disagreements are framed constructively\n No defensive or confrontational language\n Professional tone maintained throughout\nRisk Assessment\nRisk Indicator\tAssessment\tLevel\nCode Execution\tPython/R scripts executed locally\tMedium\nNetwork Access\tNo external API calls\tLow\nFile System Access\tRead input files, write output files\tMedium\nInstruction Tampering\tStandard prompt guidelines\tLow\nData Exposure\tOutput files saved to workspace\tLow\nSecurity Checklist\n No hardcoded credentials or API keys\n No unauthorized file system access (../)\n Output does not expose sensitive information\n Prompt injection protections in place\n Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)\n Output directory restricted to workspace\n Script execution in sandboxed environment\n Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)\n Dependencies audited\nPrerequisites\n# Python dependencies\npip install -r requirements.txt\n\nEvaluation Criteria\nSuccess Metrics\n Successfully executes main functionality\n Output meets quality standards\n Handles edge cases gracefully\n Performance is acceptable\nTest Cases\nBasic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output\nEdge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling\nPerformance: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time\nLifecycle Status\nCurrent Stage: Draft\nNext Review Date: 2026-03-06\nKnown Issues: None\nPlanned Improvements:\nPerformance optimization\nAdditional feature support"
  },
  "trust": {
    "sourceLabel": "tencent",
    "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/AIPOCH-AI/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/AIPOCH-AI/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "owner": "AIPOCH-AI",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "license": null,
    "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record"
  },
  "links": {
    "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/peer-review-response-drafter",
    "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/peer-review-response-drafter/agent",
    "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/peer-review-response-drafter/agent.json",
    "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/peer-review-response-drafter/agent.md"
  }
}