It's my pleasure to review this manuscript. This manuscript provides a detailed description of the Community SWAT (CoSWAT) modeling framework to develop a high-resolution global SWAT+ model, which automates data retrieval, preprocessing, and model configuration to address the computational and data management challenges inherent in large-scale hydrological modeling. The availability of the workflow as an open-source tool further facilitates reproducibility and community collaborative research. The manuscript is well written and represents a substantial contribution to scientific progress.

Here are some comments.

1.In the introduction, Global Hydrological Models (GHMs) are described in several separate paragraphs, which makes the information somewhat fragmented. I recommend consolidating this into a more concise summary, perhaps in two or three paragraphs. This will help to present the key aspects of the model more clearly and cohesively, improving the overall readability of the section.

2.The comparison of SWAT+ ET with the GLEAM dataset lacks a clear description of the time range. It is essential to specify the exact time period and resolution used for the comparison.

3.The manuscript lacks a comparison analysis for the performance of monthly river discharge with other ISIMIP global hydrological models. The comparison is essential to provide a comprehensive understanding of the performance and limitations of the global SWAT+ model.

4.In Table 1, Nr 1 “CWatM” should maintain consistent capitalization with "CWATM" in line 57.

5.In line 66, the abbreviation “CC” is introduced without its full form. This should be corrected to enhance the clarity of the manuscript.

6.In line 101, the abbreviation “ORCHIDEE” and “SWBM” is introduced without its full form.

7.In line 109, the phrase “with between” in the sentence “Despite the differences in general purposes and focus for model development with between LSMs, GHMs and DGVMs” is grammatically incorrect, please remove “with”.

8.In line 144, in the sentence “increased uncertainty (Sood & Smakhtin, 2015) in model outputs (Sood & Smakhtin, 2015)”, the same reference is cited twice in close proximity, which is unnecessary and can be confusing for readers.

9.In line 211, The sentence “Gleam4 dataset was used for evaluating ET (Miralles et al., 2011, 2024) The datasets require preprocessing to be used by the SWAT+ model.” contains a grammatical error. It appears to be a comma splice, where two independent clauses are joined without proper punctuation.

10.In line 211, “Gleam4 dataset was used for evaluating ET”, In line 274, “We also evaluated the ET output against GLEAM v3 dataset”. It is unclear whether these refer to the same dataset or different versions of the dataset. For clarity and consistency, the authors should ensure that the dataset names are used accurately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The word “Gleam”, the authors should maintain consistency when referring to GLEAM. Please revise the terminology throughout the entire paper accordingly.

11.In line 259, mentions “HRUs”, a detailed introduction to HRU is needed.

12.In line 274, The sentence “We also evaluated the ET output against GLEAM v3 dataset using maps and sample point difference distribution.” is somewhat ambiguous. It is unclear how exactly the evaluation was conducted using “maps and sample point difference distribution.” For clarity, the authors should provide more specific details about the methods used for this evaluation. 

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled " A High-Resolution Global SWAT+ Hydrological Model for Impact Studies” by Chawanda et al. The manuscript deals with application of a global version of SWAT plus hydrological model which can be utilized for various purposes of impact assessment subsequently. I really appreciate the effort and the gigantic task it required on the author’s side to develop such a modelling framework, including automatic data retrieval, processing, and setting up model configuration. While this certainly is a big step forward, towards easing the computational hurdles associated with a such large scale distributed hydrological modelling, availability of the open source tool and workflow encourages community collaborative research. I am in favour of publishing the manuscript but only have a few minor comments as listed below.

• I think the introduction section needs some work. I found this section to be meandering and in my opinion these many separate paragraphs about the modelling applications are not needed. My recommendation is to squeeze these texts in few paragraphs and then try to elaborate the research gap and SWAT large scale applications as well. If I remember correctly, there were a handful of studies that reported comparing SWAT model in very large scales, are we missing some relevant references here?
• The issue that the authors reported as a potential future improvement with regards to the comparison with SWAT simulated global ET with the GLEAMS dataset are in my opinion somewhat previously known knowledge. Many researchers have reported the issue with GLEAM dataset that the dataset due to partitioning of ET, tends to overestimate transpiration while underestimating soil evaporation. For example see Chen et al. (2022) “Uncertainties in partitioning evapotranspiration by two remote sensing-based models”. I also believe that GLEAM v4 is available now, with a higher spatial resolution than the v3. Have the authors considered using this product to do their comparison?
• I am missing the details about time range for the ET comparison.
• I would also like to know was non-availability of spatial data the sole reason for choosing the ASTER GDEM data over SRTM? I think this is important because SRTM does better representation of mountainous regions than ASTER GDEM, so I would like to see what the authors think about this issue.
• Could the authors provide any details about the actual runtime for basins of different spatial scale?
• Line 67 : Explain CC