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
- Scodive/Paper-Agent-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- willlee1995/skillsedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Alexyskoutnev/research-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 7, 2026
- black-yt/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 4, 2026
- dongzhigang13305312738-art/paper-skillsedited, first seen Jul 21, 2026
- xjtulyc/awesome-rosetta-skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 17, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 3
- lingzhi227/agent-research-skills★ 35098% same
- dongzhigang13305312738-art/paper-skills★ 198% same
- willlee1995/skills★ 198% same
Wrote their own version · 4
- xjtulyc/awesome-rosetta-skills★ 34same name
- Scodive/Paper-Agent-Skills★ 20same name
- black-yt/skills★ 16same name
- Alexyskoutnev/research-skills★ 2same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository164 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agents/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- claude-md/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- hooks/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- insight-architectSkill
- agent-teamsSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- claim-decomposerSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- dispatcherSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- hd-mavp-routerSkill
- mentor-modeSkill
- reference-registrySkill
- routing-policySkill
- skill-self-updateSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- ab-testSkill
- academic-researchSkill
- advanced-methodology-extensionsSkill
- agent-governanceSkill
- ai-hyp-gateSkill
- algorithm-designSkill
- analystSkill
- archcode-genomicsSkill
- arm-cortex-microcontrollersSkill
- atomizeSkill
- backward-traceabilitySkill
- boyko-constraint-engineSkill
- boyko-epistemic-auditSkill
- boyko-goal-expansion-100Skill
- boyko-knowledge-architectureSkill
- boyko-leverage-mapSkill
- boyko-methodSkill
- boyko-preflightSkill
- boyko-project-radarSkill
- boyko-rippleSkill
- boyko-scientific-consortiumSkill
- boyko-specialistSkill
- boyko-toolcheckSkill
- boyko-triangle-auditSkill
- boyko-why-ladderSkill
- browser-actSkill
- build-autoSkill
- c4-architectureSkill
- career-prepSkill
- changelog-genSkill
- citation-managementSkill
- code-debuggingSkill
- code-materialitySkill
- codex-skepticSkill
- codex-solverSkill
- codex-tracySkill
- combinatorial-creativitySkill
- common-groundSkill
- conductorSkill
- consilienceSkill
- construct-measurement-gateSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 35
If additional experiments are needed, describe the new results concretely
- Distinctive: line 38
Use the standard rebuttal format:
- Distinctive: line 58
Add a brief summary at the top listing all major changes made to the paper:
“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.
Files
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:
- Extract individual concerns/questions/weaknesses
- Categorize each: major concern, minor concern, question, suggestion
- Identify the core issue behind each concern
Step 2: Generate Responses
For each concern:
- Acknowledge the reviewer's point
- Respond with evidence — cite specific sections, equations, experiments, or results from the paper
- Describe what was done (not what will be done) — "We have added...", "Our experiments show..."
- 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
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
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.

