Reviewer Response Matrix
Turn reviewer comments into an action table and a response letter draft
Peer review comments arrive as a wall of text. This recipe converts them into a clear execution plan — what to change, where, how to respond — plus a point-by-point response letter draft.
INGREDIENTS
PROMPT
Create a skill called "Reviewer Response Matrix". Intake: - Reviewer comments (full text; required) - Manuscript structure (optional; if missing, mark unspecified) - Who is responsible for edits (solo/coauthors; if unknown: unspecified) Output: 1) A response matrix table (as Markdown) with statuses. 2) A response letter draft: - Include all reviewer text (quoted) - Responses grouped logically (by theme) if helpful - Polite, specific, non-defensive 3) A "missing items" checklist: comments not yet addressed. Rules: - If you aren't sure how to address a comment, propose 2–3 options and mark uncertainty.
How It Works
Paste the reviewer comments and the Claw parses them into atomic items,
groups them by theme, assigns actions, and drafts a professional response letter.
What You Get
- A comment matrix with columns:
- Reviewer / comment text / theme / required action / manuscript location / status / owner
- A response-letter draft that:
- Quotes reviewer text
- Responds point-by-point in a polite, non-defensive tone
- Links each response to a specific manuscript change (if known)
- A "missing items" checklist: comments not yet addressed
- Uncertainty flags: when a comment is ambiguous, the Claw proposes 2–3 response options
Setup Steps
- Paste reviewer comments (or upload the decision letter)
- Provide your manuscript outline or section headings (optional)
- The Claw produces the matrix and a response draft
- Re-run after edits to update statuses and check for gaps
Tips
- Group by theme to spot patterns across reviewers
- Flag "needs discussion" items early — don't leave them for the last day
- The matrix doubles as a project tracker for the revision