agentleFS
sergeeeysergeeey/Claude-cod-top-2026/skills/extensions/rebuttal-writing/SKILL.md

rebuttal-writing

Skill9 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

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.

7 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If additional experiments are needed, describe the new results concretely

    line 35
  2. Distinctive:

    Use the standard rebuttal format:

    line 38
  3. Distinctive:

    Add a brief summary at the top listing all major changes made to the paper:

    line 58

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
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, paper-revision
  • Downstream: paper-compilation
  • See also: data-analysis

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.