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
- 01Extract and categorize reviewer concerns
- 02Respond with evidence from the paper
- 03Organize replies by reviewer and concern
- 04Summarize major changes
- 05Mark revisions clearly
Use cases
- 01Draft responses to journal reviews
- 02Prepare a conference rebuttal
- 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-writingAfter installing, type/rebuttal-writingin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Bundled filesreferences/rebuttal-prompts.md
Details
From the project READMERebuttal 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
Comments
Markdown supported