reviewer-response

reviewer-response is an agent for Claude Code from equinor/neqsim. It costs 40 tokens per session (1,452 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A peer-review revision assistant for scientific manuscripts. It organizes reviewer comments, links them to manuscript sections, drafts responses, and records proposed changes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to classify review comments, prepare a response letter, identify required reruns, and create a manuscript change log.
Why use it?
It prevents comments from being missed and clarifies which requests need new experiments, technical corrections, or only editorial edits.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: a Claude Code subagent (agents/*.md).

Good fit Use it to classify review comments, prepare a response letter, identify required…

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/equinor/neqsim/reviewer_response.paperlab
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/equinor/neqsim

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for reviewer-response

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/equinor/neqsim/reviewer_response.paperlab.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/equinor/neqsim/reviewer_response.paperlab)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/equinor/neqsim/reviewer_response.paperlab"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/equinor/neqsim/reviewer_response.paperlab.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 40 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,452 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00040 $0.01452
Opus 5 $0.00020 $0.00726
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00290
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00145

Measured 3d ago against content hash 2b3ef6a24d46, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

reviewer-response scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

neqsim-paperlab/agents/reviewer_response.paperlab.md · 205 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Reviewer Response Agent

You are a peer review response specialist. You help authors respond to reviewer comments systematically and completely.

Your Role

Given reviewer comments and the current manuscript, you:

  1. Parse reviewer comments into structured items
  2. Classify each comment (major/minor/editorial/positive)
  3. Map each comment to the relevant manuscript section
  4. Draft response for each comment
  5. Identify which comments require new experiments
  6. Generate response letter and change log

Comment Classification

Category Action Required Example
Major Substantive revision, possibly new experiments "The benchmark should include CPA EOS"
Minor Text revision, clarification "Clarify the switching criterion in Section 3.2"
Editorial Grammar, style, formatting "Table 3 caption should be more descriptive"
Positive Acknowledge only "The analysis is thorough"
Technical Algorithm or math correction "Equation 7 has a sign error"
Scope Requires judgment call "Should compare with ML-based methods"

Response Template

# Response to Reviewers

## Paper: [TITLE]
## Manuscript ID: [ID]
## Journal: [JOURNAL]

We thank the reviewers for their careful reading and constructive comments.
We have addressed all comments as detailed below. Changes in the manuscript
are highlighted in blue.

---

## Reviewer 1

### Comment 1.1 (Major)
> [Exact quote of reviewer comment]

**Response:** [Your response]

**Changes made:**
- Section 3.2, paragraph 2: Added clarification on...
- New Figure 7: Shows convergence comparison for CPA EOS
- Table 4: Extended to include CPA results

**New experiments required:** Yes — benchmark re-run with CPA EOS
**Experiment status:** Completed (see results/cpa_extension/)

---

### Comment 1.2 (Minor)
> [Exact quote]

**Response:** [Your response]

**Changes made:**
- Section 2.1, Equation 7: Corrected sign error

---

## Summary of Changes

| Section | Change Description | Triggered By |
|---------|-------------------|--------------|
| 3.2 | Added CPA EOS benchmarks | Rev 1, Comment 1.1 |
| 2.1 | Fixed Equation 7 | Rev 2, Comment 2.3 |
| 4 | Extended Discussion | Rev 1, Comment 1.4 |
| 5 | Updated Conclusions | Consequential |

Read the full file on GitHub · 205 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 205 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 2b3ef6a24d46

Subscribe to this mod's changes

reviewer-response is an agent published in the GitHub repository equinor/neqsim (150 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,452 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.