Dear Fita et al,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript. One of the reviewers was unfortunately unable to conduct the second review, hence i have done it myself.

The paper can be accepted subject to the following minor revisions:

1. Abstract, at line 10, where you state the problem at hand, you also refer to final homogenization. But, as you have now very clearly explained in the paper, the new code does not ensure final homogenization. If a reader reads the abstract alone, i think they will assume this is also done. Hence i recommend to add just one more sentence to the abstract to explain what the code does not ensure final homogenization for CORDEX.

2. Paragraphing - Section 2.1, i suggest to make into 1 paragraph, rather than 2. Page 10, line 15, you have a single sentence paragraph here? it really breaks the flow. Please revise the entire manuscript and check for these. Also page 20, line 16, i assume you forget to change lines here?

3. Section 2.1. It is great that there is now a general intro to WRF. However, you should also refer the reader to the WRF technical doc, and users guide in this section for more details.

4. General English. Please avoid using phrases such as "it is required", rather use "the user is required to". Same thing on page 9, line 26, "this will require to perform" should be "this will require the user to perform". Please check the entire manuscript again for similar minor issues. also page 41, line 8 "it should be tested", what is "it", just say "this new module should be tested". Also, page 43, "can be overcame" should be "can be overcome". While copy-editing will pick up these minor mistakes, it is also your responsibility to ensure there is a minimum of such mistakes. Please review carefully again.

Kind regards,
Jatin