ccf-rebuttal-writer

The full skill.

Original instructions from the publisher’s SKILL.md

# CCF Rebuttal Writer

## Family File Contract

Before writing, resolve the canonical output and one stable working directory per task/artifact. Reuse explicit or established task paths; otherwise use project-root `ccfa-workfiles/<purpose>/<artifact-id>/`, with `source/`, `assets/`, `cache/`, and `build/` only as needed. Update current files in place; do not scatter intermediates or create iteration copies. Preserve inputs and required evidence; clean only verified disposable files created by this task. Use UTF-8 text I/O and check Chinese text after saving or rendering. For file work, apply [artifact-contracts.md](../ccf-common/references/artifact-contracts.md) and reuse the same paths across skill transitions.

## Collaboration Contract

Before specialist execution, read and apply [ccf-humanization](../ccf-humanization/SKILL.md) first, then [ccf-common](../ccf-common/SKILL.md). At every handoff, reuse their applicable active rules or refresh missing/changed ones. Both preflights are required even without prose; detailed editing, experiment, and maintenance modes run only when relevant.

Keep one integrating owner and actively use other skills to resolve missing prerequisites or check material findings. Reuse applicable evidence; do not skip necessary groundwork to save tokens. Before finalizing, integrate contributions and verify affected results. Follow the conditional [cooperation routes](../ccf-common/references/routing.md); avoid unrelated stages and duplicate reports.

## Core Rule

Handle post-review communication and revision accountability. Responses must be calm, factual, evidence-grounded, and promise only feasible changes. Resubmission adaptation is conservative by default: no new experiments and no bibliography changes unless the user explicitly authorizes them. Follow the user's requested response format: plain text, TeX, reviewer-by-reviewer, issue-grouped, table-first, or short response.

## Modes

- `rebuttal`: reviewer/AC response under a word or time budget.
- `revision-ledger`: reviewer comment -> action -> manuscript location -> owner -> status.
- `response-letter`: revision summary or camera-ready response letter.
- `resubmission`: adapt an already written paper to a new venue with conservative defaults.

## Workflow

1. Identify venue, response format, word budget, deadline, review scores/confidence, and whether this is rebuttal, revision, or resubmission.
2. Parse comments into issue groups by reviewer, concern type, severity, available evidence, response strategy, and promised paper change.
3. Load `references/response-strategy.md` for substantial responses and apply `../ccf-paper-writer/references/prose-quality-guardrails.md`; answer actual high-impact concerns first: soundness, novelty, missing evidence, incorrect assumptions, and shared concerns.
4. Load `references/revision-ledger.md` whenever promised edits, manuscript locations, resubmission actions, review rounds, or cross-version score changes must be tracked. Update one canonical ledger in place; do not create a separate ledger per round unless the user requests snapshots.
5. For full rebuttals, load `references/tex-templates.md` and use the TeX templates in `assets/templates/` when useful.
6. For resubmission, map old reviewer concerns to the new venue's constraints through `ccf-submission-checker`; do not silently add experiments or bibliography changes.
7. Complete necessary contributions through their owners: paper writer for requested revisions, experiment designer for authorized evidence work, and submission checker for applicable venue/package rules. Use integrity auditor for unresolved claim/result conflicts and reviewer for a consequential unanswered criticism. Integrate returned evidence and verify actual changes before claiming completion in the response; a planned experiment or promised edit remains planned.

## Adaptive Output Contract

Put the requested response artifact first. For "write rebuttal", output the rebuttal text or TeX first. For "make a ledger", output the ledger first. Use the full structure below for standard multi-reviewer response planning or when the user asks for strategy plus draft:

```text
Mode:
Venue and constraints:
Issue table:
Response strategy:
Draft response or response file:
Promised paper changes:
Revision ledger:
Resubmission adaptation notes:
Claims/promises to avoid:
Next CCFA owner:
Checklist status:
```

## References

- `references/response-strategy.md`: response tactics.
- `references/response-checklists.md`: tone, evidence, promises, and word-budget checks.
- `../ccf-paper-writer/references/prose-quality-guardrails.md`: concise, non-defensive response prose and anti-pattern checks.
- `references/tex-templates.md`: reusable TeX response templates.
- `references/revision-ledger.md`: tracking reviewer comments and manuscript actions.
- `../ccf-paper-reviewer/references/version-comparison.md`: frozen scoring contract and issue provenance for cross-version review; rebuttal prose must not redefine that contract.

## Authorized Response Work

Follow `../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md` and `../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md`. A requested response plus revision authorizes both deliverables through their owners. Group duplicate comments while preserving reviewer attribution and answer coverage. Distinguish supplied results, planned experiments, promised revisions, and completed edits; verify an edit's location before claiming it was made. Preserve word budgets and respond to actual concerns without gratuitous apologies, imagined objections, or defensive repetition. A concise factual clarification is not a scientific concession. Reply drafting does not authorize posting or submission.