What problem does it solve? Responding to journal peer review requires coordinating editor instructions, multiple mutually blind reviewers, manuscript edits, and cover letters without leaking cross-reviewer information or fabricating evidence. This Skill structures that entire revision-correspondence workflow so nothing is missed, misattributed, or overstated. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Reviewer-Isolated Response Drafting: Splits editor and reviewer comments into stable IDs (E.1, R1.1, R2.3) and produces a standalone point-by-point response letter per reviewer that never reveals another reviewer's comments, numbering, or recommendations. - Evidence-Calibrated Tracking: Classifies each comment by action type, work status, and blocking state, refusing to mark anything verified without an inspectable artifact and flagging missing author input instead of inventing experiments, statistics, or line numbers. - LaTeX Revision Package Auditing: Ships templates for cover letters, response letters, and red-marked manuscripts, plus a consistency script that checks verbatim quote drift, comment-response count mismatches, and clean-versus-marked manuscript divergence. - Use Case: Paste an editor decision email with two reviewer reports and your Chinese revision notes; receive a decision-type-gated strategy summary, an internal master tracker, separate English response letters per reviewer, a cover letter draft, and a list of facts you still must supply. ## Quick Start Paste your editor decision letter and reviewer comments and ask the assistant to generate a point-by-point response framework with per-reviewer isolated response letters.
