|## General remarks|
The manuscript provides a detailed overview about the RavenR model setup and evaluation package. The authors document and demonstrate the application of this tool within the RavenR framework for the example of a specific river basin.
First of all, congrats to the authors for putting together such an extensive tool to facilitate the setup, use and evaluation of hydrological models generated within the Raven framework. I think this paper is in a good state for publication. While the tool itself is rather specific to one modeling framework, the publication of such a tool is a good blueprint for other modeling groups to develop and improve similar scripts on their own and, thus, earns its place in this journal. I only have some minor comments that the authors may use to improve the manuscript, but the publication should not be conditional to that:
- it might be sensible to more clearly define the intended user group of the tool right from the start. The abstract and introduction mention the potential application of RavenR for hydrological models outside the Raven framework. While this is technically true at least for such evaluation packages that only require a single time series, these evaluations are usually also found in different evaluation packages or are probably already included in the workflows of other models. Here, RavenR does not appear to be worth the effort to write output conversions scripts for other models. However, RivenR really shines as a comprehensive support software for the Raven framework. As a hydrological modeler who neither uses R nor Raven or any of the hydrological models mentioned in the manuscript, the paper is still an interesting and inspiring lecture. However, I don't feel I can profit from this tool at all with an reasonable effort. In order to manage expectations, I would mention any general application possibility only in the conclusion and otherwise target the Raven user group more directly.
- section 3.2.2 appears a bit too optimistic to me. True, as long as a tool like weathercane is available RivenR can utilize its standardized interface and data format. However, as soon as user target river basins in different regions, such tools will either be not available at all or use different data formats which will require a considerable effort from user side to adapt it for working with RavenR. Such limitations should be mentioned clearly.
- Even after the revision, the manuscript feels quite long in parts of the introduction. While I very much sympathize with the authors call for transparent and open(-source) science, this statement feels a bit out of place in a journal like this, as I would assume almost all readers already share this view. One the other hand, it cannot hurt to emphasize it once again.
- just having the technical opportunity to setup 8 x 10^12 model configuration doesn't actually seem to be a step forward as the vast majority of combinations are most likely not sensible ones. Thus, it seem to be very important to promote a tool like RavenR to guide users through the model setup.
## Technical comments
- Fig 2 & 3: why are the referenced sections in bold font?
- why is example code included and labeled as a figure? Wouldn't it be more straight forward to implement it as code blocks?
- Fig 5B: which actual variables are sim and obs? I assume all three of the others are forcing variables? Just to know that both curve are (probably) the same quantity without information about what they are, doesn't help with model evaluation.