Claude Research Kit
Recipes

Respond to Reviewers

Draft a point-by-point response letter that quotes each comment, states the change and its location, and never claims a change that wasn't actually made.

A response letter is where overclaiming is most tempting and most dangerous — claiming a change you didn't make is the fastest way to lose an editor's trust.

1. Paste the reviews

Drop the reviewer comments into the session (or a tasks/reviews/ file). The kit treats recurring critiques as memory — see step 4.

2. Run the skill

/response-to-reviewers

It produces a point-by-point letter: each reviewer comment is quoted, followed by the response, the change made, and its exact location in the manuscript. It stays courteous, and it emits an edit checklist alongside the letter.

The skill will never claim a change that wasn't actually made. If a requested change is still pending, it says so explicitly rather than papering over it.

3. Make the edits, then verify

Work the checklist. Because every edit touches .tex/.bib, the citation-gate and compile-gate hooks fire — new citations must resolve, the document must still compile. Run /claim-check on any section you reworded to confirm you didn't introduce an overclaim while addressing a comment.

4. Let recurring feedback become a rule

/response-to-reviewers logs recurring critiques to tasks/reviews/. A reviewer's repeated complaint ("you keep overclaiming in the discussion") is a rule, not a one-off — promote it to tasks/reviews/_index.md → ## Top Rules so it's surfaced every session.

5. Optional — ship it as HTML

End your prompt with "structure this as HTML" to get a shareable response-letter artifact: reviewer quote → response → change + location, with status chips and a Copy as LaTeX button. See ARTIFACTS.md.