mcpField
R
rebuttal-writing

rebuttal-writing

github.com/lingzhi227Documents4401.7k installsUpdated 35w ago
Repository

About rebuttal-writing

rebuttal-writing is a skill for preparing structured, evidence-based responses to peer review comments. It helps researchers address each concern with paper-specific evidence and summarize revisions.

Key features

  1. 01Extract and categorize reviewer concerns
  2. 02Respond with evidence from the paper
  3. 03Organize replies by reviewer and concern
  4. 04Summarize major changes
  5. 05Mark revisions clearly

Use cases

  1. 01Draft responses to journal reviews
  2. 02Prepare a conference rebuttal
  3. 03Track how revisions address reviewer feedback

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/lingzhi227/agent-research-skills --skill rebuttal-writing

After installing, type/rebuttal-writingin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesreferences/rebuttal-prompts.md

Details

From the project README

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

Comments

Markdown supported