rebuttal-writing

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.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "rebuttal-writing" with this command: npx skills add lingzhi227/agent-research-skills/lingzhi227-agent-research-skills-rebuttal-writing

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

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Research

deep-research

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Research

novelty-assessment

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Research

paper-revision

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Research

self-review

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review