What problem does it solve? Responding to peer review requires coordinating editor instructions, multiple mutually blind reviewers, manuscript edits, and LaTeX deliverables without leaking cross-reviewer information or fabricating compliance, which is error-prone when done manually. ## 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 with no cross-reviewer leakage. - Decision-Type Gated Workflow: Enforces a Major/Minor Revision intake gate, classifies each comment by action and work status, and tracks package readiness honestly (ready_to_submit, needs_author_input, blocked). - LaTeX Package Consistency Auditing: Ships templates for cover letters, response letters, and red-marked manuscripts, plus a script that verifies quoted text matches the manuscript and clean/marked copies agree. - Use Case: Paste an editor decision email with reviewer reports and receive a response strategy summary, per-reviewer response letters, a revision cover letter, and a missing-information checklist. ## Quick Start Use the nature-response skill to turn this editor decision letter and reviewer comments into a point-by-point response package with a separate letter for each reviewer.
