IPlease summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical. The paper presents (and provides a brief tutorial) automan a framework to automate computational simulations. It also demonstrates how the framework has been used for the author publication describing EDAC-SPH. The paper presents a clear guide on how scientist of all discipline can build (or use) tools to help improve their computational pipeline to increase reproducibility. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in this field? While, the proposed approach is not ground breaking, it is certainly a very good example of good practice. The author should be commended for the effort in making their work reproducible and sharing the tool they built to make it possible. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript? The manuscript is well written, clear and give sufficient details so that others can build on the author’s work. The article fit nicely in the category 1) and 3) of the CiSE CFP. I would even encourage the author to include a bit more about the specific use case they describe (EDAC-SPH). What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript? It would have been interesting for the author to explore how their tools could integrate in modern continuous integration tool chains. I personally believe that such software engineering practices should be (strongly) encouraged in the scientific community, and I believe the author framework could easily be adapted to such concern. I would encourage the author to look into this if time/space constraints permit. A simple toy example running a few problem on Travis or CircleCI may be a good start. Comments The paper is good and fit well with the objective of CiSE. I would encourage the author to: Describe in a bit more details how the framework has been used leading to the EDAC-SPH publication (vs how it works). Experiment or at least discuss feasibility of integration in continuous integration tool chains (tools to help the scientific community adopting such practise is really needed and would increase the value of the proposed framework). Provide reference ti EDAC-SPH gitlab earlier in the paper (maybe reworking the paper ordering in line with comment 1.) . Open-source release: The code of the framework, and the code corresponding to the EDAC-SPH are both available online. However, it may be good to state that the code is under BSD license (reading the license file it seems to be the case) [concerning the publication code on gitlab, I am not sure what is the licensing practice in such scenario, but it may be good to also provide the license]. Finally the author may want to look into packaging their framework. This work will be of clear interest to CiSE readership and fit perfectly the requirements and objectives of the reproducible research track. The manuscript should be accepted after minor revisions.