Paper Comments

[Aravind-Sundararajan]

• The manuscript is well-written but could benefit from tightening the language to reduce repetition (e.g., repeated descriptions of FCL's capabilities across sections).
• Highlight the novelty and practical impact of the package earlier in the text.
• Clarify whether the target audience is primarily robotics researchers or practitioners, as this would influence the level of detail in the explanations (e.g., ROS/MoveIt integration).
• Consider explicitly stating how robot_collision_checking simplifies tasks compared to using FCL directly.
• The statement "We include ROS 1 and ROS 2 implementations" could benefit from clarifying how the two implementations differ or whether they share a common codebase.
• There is no discussion of the docker images or installing ROS yourself for currently available releases of robot_collision_checking
• Expand briefly on the visualization capabilities. Are the visualizations limited to debugging purposes, or are they intended for runtime use?
• The description of robot_collision_checking being used in the constrained_manipulability package is mentioned twice. Consolidate into one section for conciseness.
• The advantages of robot_collision_checking over MoveIt and Pinocchio could be emphasized further. Consider a table or bullet points for clarity.
• The comparison with python-fcl could discuss performance trade-offs between Python and C++ for collision checking.
• The discussion on obstacle avoidance and path planning is helpful but would benefit from more specific, real-world use cases where robot_collision_checking excels.
• Consider explicitly stating there are no conflicts of interest related to the affiliations (if applicable).

Consider including a brief section discussing potential future directions, such as:

• Extending the library to support additional collision-checking algorithms or geometries.
• Supporting bindings for other languages (e.g., Python).
• Examples of integration with new robotics platforms or sensors.

This issue is part of a JOSS review.