SECURITY REVIEW
Not yet assessed
Review the original instructions and requested permissions before installing.
No security review is available for this catalog entry yet.
Writing · Research / AGENT SKILL
rebuttal-writing
0
Write structured, evidence-based rebuttals that address reviewer comments point by point.
Write point-by-point rebuttals to reviewer comments. Extract concerns from reviews, generate evidence-based responses, and format as a structured rebuttal document. Use after receiving peer review feedback.
Understand the trade-offs.
SKILL QUALITY
Not yet assessed
How clearly the skill guides your agent, how complete its workflow is, and how you can check the outcome.
No quality assessment is available for this catalog entry yet.
The full skill.
Original instructions from the publisher’s SKILL.md
# Rebuttal Writing Generate structured, evidence-based rebuttals to peer review comments. ## Input - `$0` — Reviewer comments (text file, or pasted directly) - Optional: current paper draft for reference ## References - Rebuttal prompts and format templates: `~/.claude/skills/rebuttal-writing/references/rebuttal-prompts.md` ## Workflow ### Step 1: Parse Review Comments For each reviewer: 1. Extract individual concerns/questions/weaknesses 2. Categorize each: major concern, minor concern, question, suggestion 3. Identify the core issue behind each concern ### Step 2: Generate Responses For each concern: 1. **Acknowledge** the reviewer's point 2. **Respond with evidence** — cite specific sections, equations, experiments, or results from the paper 3. **Describe what was done** (not what will be done) — "We have added...", "Our experiments show..." 4. If additional experiments are needed, describe the new results concretely ### Step 3: Format Rebuttal Use the standard rebuttal format: ``` # Response to Reviewers We thank all reviewers for their constructive feedback. We address each concern below. ## Reviewer #1 **Concern #1:** [extracted concern] **Author Response:** [detailed response with evidence] **Concern #2:** [extracted concern] **Author Response:** [detailed response with evidence] ## Reviewer #2 ... ``` ### Step 4: Summary of Changes Add a brief summary at the top listing all major changes made to the paper: - New experiments added - Sections revised - Clarifications made ## Rules - **Reply with what was done, not what will be done** — "We have conducted additional experiments" not "We will conduct..." - **Be specific** — Reference exact sections, table numbers, equation numbers - **Be respectful** — Thank reviewers, acknowledge valid concerns - **Address every concern** — Do not skip any reviewer point - **Provide evidence** — Every response should include concrete data, citations, or reasoning - **Keep responses concise** — Detailed enough to address the concern, but not padded - **Highlight changes** — When referring to modified text, use blue text or clearly mark revisions ## Related Skills - Upstream: [self-review](../self-review/), [paper-revision](../paper-revision/) - Downstream: [paper-compilation](../paper-compilation/) - See also: [data-analysis](../data-analysis/)