Reviewer Response

Phase 2: Triage and Plan

1. Group comments by theme (methodology, writing, experiments, claims, missing references, etc.)
2. For each major comment, assess:
   • Is the reviewer right? If yes, plan the revision.
   • Is it a misunderstanding? If so, plan both a clarification in the response AND a revision to prevent future misunderstanding.
   • Is it unreasonable or out of scope? Flag it — the user decides how to handle these.
3. Identify "cascade" changes — fixing one major comment that also addresses several minor ones.
4. Estimate effort for each revision: quick fix, moderate rewrite, or significant new work.
5. Propose a revision order — address cascading changes first, then isolated major items, then minor.
6. Save the plan to notes/revision-plan.md.

Phase 3: Draft the Response Letter

Write a structured response letter in papers/response-letter.tex (or .md if the user prefers):

Format for each comment:

\textbf{Reviewer [N], Comment [M]:}
\begin{quote}
[Exact quote of the reviewer's comment — copy verbatim]
\end{quote}

\textbf{Response:}
[Your response — thank, address, explain. Reference specific changes.]

\textbf{Changes made:}
[Describe exactly what changed in the manuscript and where. "Section 3.2, paragraph 2: Added clarification of the sampling procedure." or "Table 3: Added new baseline comparison as requested."]

Response writing principles:

• Start every response with acknowledgment: "We thank the reviewer for this observation." (brief, not groveling)
• Be direct about what changed and where
• For disagreements: present evidence respectfully, never dismiss
• For contradictory reviews: explain the tension and your resolution
• For out-of-scope requests: acknowledge the importance, explain why it's beyond the current scope, suggest it as future work
• Every major comment must reference a concrete change with a location in the manuscript

Phase 4: Track Completeness

1. Create a checklist in notes/revision-checklist.md:

## Revision Checklist

### Reviewer 1
- [x] R1.1 (Major) — Added baseline comparison in Table 3
- [x] R1.2 (Minor) — Fixed citation format in Section 2
- [ ] R1.3 (Major) — Need to run additional experiment

### Reviewer 2
- [x] R2.1 (Minor) — Clarified notation in Section 3.1
- [ ] R2.2 (Major) — Waiting on user decision (contradicts R1.4)

2. Verify every single comment has a response. Missing even one is a rejection risk.
3. Flag any items that require the user's input or decision.

Phase 5: Generate Diff Summary

If the original manuscript exists in the workspace:

1. Read the original paper file
2. Summarize all changes made, section by section
3. If LaTeX, suggest running latexdiff between the original and revised version: latexdiff original.tex revised.tex > diff.tex
4. Save the summary to notes/revision-summary.md

Rules

• Quote reviewer comments verbatim. Never paraphrase a reviewer's words in the response letter — they know what they wrote.
• Every major comment must map to a concrete manuscript change with a specific location. "We have revised the manuscript accordingly" without specifics is unacceptable.
• Never be defensive or dismissive, even when reviewers are wrong. Academic tone: firm but respectful.
• If two reviewers contradict each other, surface this explicitly to the user before writing the response. Don't guess which reviewer to prioritize.
• Track completeness obsessively. A missed comment is worse than a weak response.
• Don't fabricate experimental results. If a reviewer requests a new experiment, draft the response as a placeholder and flag it to the user: "This requires running a new experiment. Response drafted as template — fill in results after."