lingzhi227/claude-research-skills · Archived

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.

First seen Apr 21, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add lingzhi227/claude-research-skills --skill rebuttal-writing

Stronger alternatives

This repository is archived — consider an actively maintained alternative.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from lingzhi227/claude-research-skills · top by installs.

npx skills add lingzhi227/claude-research-skills

Browse all from lingzhi227/claude-research-skills

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 29
Default branch main
Open issues 3
Status Archived

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Declared agents claude-code

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 2,644 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 230 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 1 installs

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](../self-review/), [paper-revision](../paper-revision/)
  • Downstream: [paper-compilation](../paper-compilation/)
  • See also: [data-analysis](../data-analysis/)