Draft response letter text and LaTeX edits for referee points, or generate a complete reply document
Structured workflow for addressing referee comments. Operates in two modes:
/respond-to-referee referee2.md point 3 -- address a specific point from a referee file/respond-to-referee referee2.md -- generate complete reply to all points in the file/respond-to-referee identification -- address a point by topic keywordThe user provides:
These principles, distilled from journal editor guidelines and published advice (Noble 2017, PLOS Comp Bio; Review of Finance "Tips for Authors"), govern all referee responses.
| Mistake | Why it fails |
|---|---|
| Bare "we respectfully disagree" | Editor has no basis to overrule |
| Sarcasm or condescension | Poisons the review relationship |
| Fixing only the specific examples cited | Signals you missed the general point |
| Long defensive paragraphs before stating what you did | Buries the lede |
| Page-number references | Numbers shift between drafts |
| Over-revising (large unrequested changes) | Creates new attack surface |
Em-dashes (---) in prose | AI hallmark; see academic-writing.md |
| Hard-banned words (delve, crucial, etc.) | LLM tells; see academic-writing.md Section 1 |
| Hedge words (somewhat, quite, very, arguably) | Weaken claims; give magnitudes instead |
CLAUDE.md for paper state and claims.claude/rules/academic-writing.md for style rules.tex file are affected\item[\textbf{Referee:}] \textit{``[abbreviated quote of referee comment]''}
\item[Reply:] [We thank the referee for... / We agree that...]
[1-2 sentences explaining what we did and where]
[If helpful: quote the revised text in a \begin{quote} block]
[1-2 sentences explaining the rationale]
academic-writing.mdVerify proposed edits do not:
REFEREE RESPONSE: Point [N] -- [topic]
======================================
REFEREE SAID:
[brief summary]
RESPONSE LETTER TEXT:
[draft LaTeX paragraph]
PROPOSED EDITS:
File: [filename]
Location: Section [key], ~line [N]
OLD: [existing text]
NEW: [proposed replacement]
CONSISTENCY NOTES:
- [any cross-section impacts]
STATUS: [Ready / Needs human review on X]
CLAUDE.md and academic-writing.md_replies/reply_referee{N}.tex using the LaTeX template below\item[\textbf{Referee:}] / \item[Reply:]tools/bootstrap.py audit, or a repo-root compatibility shim if present)Report the compiled PDF location, page count, and any issues.
\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage[top=1.0in, bottom=1.0in, left=0.90in, right=0.90in]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{setspace,titlesec,xcolor,booktabs,enumerate}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.10}
\titleformat{\section}{\centering\large\bfseries}{\thesection.}{1em}{}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\begin{document}
\noindent \textbf{{\large Reply to Referee [N] for ``{Paper Title}''}}
\medskip
\noindent Manuscript [ID]
\bigskip
\noindent [Opening paragraph: thank referee, brief overview of revision scope]
\section{Response to the Referee's comments}
\noindent
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\textbf{Referee:}] \textit{``[quoted comment]''}
\item[Reply:] [response]
% ... repeat for each point ...
\end{enumerate}
\bigskip
\noindent [Closing paragraph]
{\footnotesize
\singlespacing
\setlength{\bibsep}{6pt}
\bibliographystyle{jf}
\bibliography{../latex/references}
}
\end{document}
Edit PDFs with natural-language instructions using the nano-pdf CLI.