Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Jayaraman Valadi
Do you understand and agree to our policy of having open and named reviews, and having your review included with the published manuscript. (If no, please inform the editor that you cannot review this manuscript.)	Yes
Is the language of sufficient quality?	Yes
Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed	There are lot of spelling mistakes. Must be corrected before acceptance.
Is there a clear statement of need explaining what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?	Yes
Additional Comments	This is clearly explained In the manuscript
Is the source code available, and has an appropriate Open Source Initiative license <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses" target="_blank">(https://opensource.org/licenses)</a> been assigned to the code?	Yes
Additional Comments	The source code is available on Github and it works as expected
As Open Source Software are there guidelines on how to contribute, report issues or seek support on the code?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the code executable?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is installation/deployment sufficiently outlined in the paper and documentation, and does it proceed as outlined?	No
Additional Comments	The software depends on a number of external soft wares. Installation of the same need to be explained clearly in the manuscript
Is the documentation provided clear and user friendly?	Yes
Additional Comments	Overall the documentation is good. Doc-Strings need minor improvements to make it more comprehensive.
Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies, and is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level?	Yes
Additional Comments	This is well explained in manuscript
Have any claims of performance been sufficiently tested and compared to other commonly-used packages?	Yes
Additional Comments	Adding a note on comparing the performance of different methods would be useful
Are there (ideally real world) examples demonstrating use of the software?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is automated testing used or are there manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?	Yes
Additional Comments	The software is available on pip and Github. When the software is installed on pip,examples can not be run.
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author	The software developed is a python wrapper for a number of epitope prediction methods which are available. Unified architecture allows users to have easy access to all methods and compare the results of each method. Some of these methods/models have to be manually installed before the user can access it through the python wrapper. A new model trained by the authors has also been added additionally. users can utilize this prediction model without having to install any additional dependencies. Salient Features The software also supports visual comparison of predictions Users can select a target protein for epitope scanning users can prediction putative mhc1 and mhc2 epitopes using various predictive models using the python wrapper. Selection of best predictions possible Visual comparison of predictions from different predictive models possible. Highlights the positions of putative epitopes on the target protein sequence Overall the manuscript and software are quite comprehensive and can be accepted after minor revisions.
Recommendation	Minor Revisions