response-to-reviewerslisted

# Response to Reviewers ## Core Rule A response letter is a **promise to the editor that the manuscript now matches what you wrote**. Therefore: **never claim a change you have not made.** Every "we have revised X" must point to a real edit at a real location (section + line, or quoted new text). If a change is intended but not yet applied, the letter says so honestly ("we will revise…") or — better — the edit is made first and then described. A response that overstates the revision is the same integrity failure as a fabricated citation, and the editor *will* check. Address every point. Quote it. State the change and where. Stay courteous even when the reviewer is wrong — disagreement is fine, dismissiveness is not. The letter reports edits; making the edits (especially to thesis/quantities/methods/argument-citations) is Protected work that needs the author. ## When to Use Invoke with `/response-to-reviewers` when: - A decision letter arrived (major/minor revision) and you need a point-by-point response. - You have applied (or planned) revisions and need the letter that maps each to a reviewer comment. - Preparing a rebuttal where you must defend a choice the reviewer questioned, with evidence. Provide the reviews: paste the decision letter, or point to the file. If the manuscript was revised already, the skill verifies each claimed change against the actual diff. ## Process ### Phase 1: Parse the Decision Letter 1. **Read the reviews** — split into individual, numb