---

name: reviewer-response description: Use when responding to paper reviews, rebuttal comments, or revision requests and you need a structured issue list, action plan, and concise response draft.

Purpose

Turn reviewer comments into a controlled rebuttal or revision workflow.

When To Use

• writing a rebuttal after conference or journal review
• planning a response-to-reviewers letter for revision
• triaging many comments across several reviewers
• deciding which comments require experiments, clarifications, or text edits

Inputs

• reviewer comments or decision letter
• current manuscript state and change constraints
• available evidence, new analyses, or planned revisions

Outputs

• issue matrix grouped by reviewer and theme
• must-fix versus clarify-only breakdown
• response draft with concise claim-evidence-action structure
• revision checklist mapped back to comments
• list of comments that cannot be fully addressed and why

Workflow

1. Normalize comments into atomic issues instead of long paragraphs.
2. Classify each issue as correction, clarification, experiment, scope, or disagreement.
3. Map each issue to evidence and to the concrete manuscript change required.
4. Draft responses that are respectful, specific, and non-defensive.
5. Check that every promise in the response has a real execution path.

Constraints

• do not answer emotionally or argue without evidence
• do not promise experiments you cannot realistically complete
• distinguish completed changes from planned future work
• keep each response aligned with one reviewer concern at a time