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.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add kenantang/codex-and-claude-skills --skill rebuttal-writingAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
2.6 KB, 541 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
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
What ships with it: 1 file
4.7 KB alongside SKILL.md
references/
- rebuttal-prompts.md4.7 KB