response-skill

response-skill is a Codex skill for drafting, revising, and verifying academic reviewer response packages. It is designed for point-by-point rebuttals, revision cover letters, manuscript-side LaTeX edits, bilingual response files, redline discipline, and final PDF-based page/line verification.

What it helps with

• Plan response strategies before editing the manuscript.
• Draft formal point-by-point replies to reviewer comments.
• Keep manuscript changes minimal and naturally placed.
• Synchronize English and Chinese response documents.
• Apply reviewer-specific LaTeX redline colors consistently.
• Mark revised tables and figures through captions when appropriate.
• Verify response references against the final compiled PDF page and manuscript line numbers.
• Audit final response files for placeholders, internal notes, stale locations, and compilation errors.

Repository structure

response-skill/
├── SKILL.md
├── agents/
│   └── openai.yaml
└── references/
    ├── latex-redline-checklist.md
    └── response-workflow.md

• SKILL.md: core trigger description, workflow, and operating principles.
• agents/openai.yaml: Codex UI metadata and default prompt.
• references/response-workflow.md: reusable reviewer-response workflow and failure modes.
• references/latex-redline-checklist.md: LaTeX coloring, compilation, and PDF page/line verification checklist.

Installation

Clone or copy this folder into a Codex skills directory, for example:

git clone https://github.com/Kirito14IT/response-skill.git "$env:USERPROFILE\.codex\skills\response-skill"

Then restart Codex or refresh skills so $response-skill can be discovered.

Typical use

Example prompt:

Use $response-skill to draft responses to Reviewer 1 Comments 1-3.
First give me possible response strategies, then revise the LaTeX response files and verify page/line references against the compiled PDF.

For a full revision pass, provide:

• reviewer comments;
• current response files;
• manuscript source, usually main.tex;
• compiled manuscript PDF with visible page and line numbers;
• any color convention, such as red for Reviewer 1 and blue for Reviewer 2.

Core workflow

1. Inspect first

   • Read the reviewer comment, current response file, manuscript source, and compiled PDF.
   • Identify the actual concern and whether existing revisions already address it.

2. Choose a strategy

   • Decide whether to agree and revise, clarify without expanding, cite an existing revision, partially disagree, or propose an experiment.
   • For ambiguous comments, present several options before editing.

3. Draft the response

   • Thank the reviewer specifically.
   • State what was changed.
   • Give the exact manuscript location.
   • Quote only the decisive revised sentence when useful.

4. Revise the manuscript minimally

   • Edit the natural paper location.
   • Avoid reviewer-only defensive text in the manuscript.
   • Color only the actual changed phrase or sentence.

5. Verify locations

   • Compile the manuscript.
   • Use the final PDF page number and printed manuscript line numbers, not .tex source-code lines.
   • Re-check all response citations after later manuscript insertions or deletions.

6. Final audit

   • Compile all response files.
   • Search for placeholders and internal notes.
   • Confirm English/Chinese files stay synchronized.
   • Confirm all cited pages, lines, figures, tables, and captions exist.

Design principles

• Strategy before drafting.
• Minimal manuscript edits by default.
• Response documents contain only formal reviewer-facing text.
• Final PDF is the source of truth for page and line references.
• Color marking should be precise, not decorative.
• Bilingual response files should be updated as paired artifacts.

Reference

The skill follows common reviewer-response norms such as point-by-point replies, polite professional tone, concrete revision descriptions, and exact change locations. One public reference used for these general principles is PLOS Computational Biology's Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Response to Reviewers.