Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.
skill mdSKILL.md4,827 B
docsSUMMARY.md315 B
History
First seen on skills.sh
First recorded snapshot · 714 installs
SKILL.md
CCF Rebuttal Writer
Core Rule
Handle post-review communication and revision accountability. Responses must be calm, factual, evidence-grounded, and promise only feasible changes. Resubmission adaptation is conservative by default: no new experiments and no bibliography changes unless the user explicitly authorizes them. Follow the user's requested response format: plain text, TeX, reviewer-by-reviewer, issue-grouped, table-first, or short response.
Modes
rebuttal: reviewer/AC response under a word or time budget.
response-letter: revision summary or camera-ready response letter.
resubmission: adapt an already written paper to a new venue with conservative defaults.
Workflow
Identify venue, response format, word budget, deadline, review scores/confidence, and whether this is rebuttal, revision, or resubmission.
Parse comments into issue groups by reviewer, concern type, severity, available evidence, response strategy, and promised paper change.
Load references/response-strategy.md for substantial responses and apply ../ccf-paper-writer/references/prose-quality-guardrails.md; answer actual high-impact concerns first: soundness, novelty, missing evidence, incorrect assumptions, and shared concerns.
Load references/revision-ledger.md whenever promised edits, manuscript locations, resubmission actions, review rounds, or cross-version score changes must be tracked. Update one canonical ledger in place; do not create a separate ledger per round unless the user requests snapshots.
For full rebuttals, load references/tex-templates.md and use the TeX templates in assets/templates/ when useful.
For resubmission, map old reviewer concerns to the new venue's constraints through ccf-submission-checker; do not silently add experiments or bibliography changes.
Hand off to ccf-paper-writer for manuscript revisions, ccf-experiment-designer for authorized new evidence, and ccf-submission-checker for venue/package checks.
Adaptive Output Contract
Put the requested response artifact first. For "write rebuttal", output the rebuttal text or TeX first. For "make a ledger", output the ledger first. Use the full structure below for standard multi-reviewer response planning or when the user asks for strategy plus draft:
Mode:
Venue and constraints:
Issue table:
Response strategy:
Draft response or response file:
Promised paper changes:
Revision ledger:
Resubmission adaptation notes:
Claims/promises to avoid:
Next CCFA owner:
Checklist status:
references/revision-ledger.md: tracking reviewer comments and manuscript actions.
../ccf-paper-reviewer/references/version-comparison.md: frozen scoring contract and issue provenance for cross-version review; rebuttal prose must not redefine that contract.
Authorized Response Work
Follow ../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md and ../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md. A requested response plus revision authorizes both deliverables through their owners. Group duplicate comments while preserving reviewer attribution and answer coverage. Distinguish supplied results, planned experiments, promised revisions, and completed edits; verify an edit's location before claiming it was made. Preserve word budgets and respond to actual concerns without gratuitous apologies, imagined objections, or defensive repetition. A concise factual clarification is not a scientific concession. Reply drafting does not authorize posting or submission.
For file outputs, follow ../ccf-common/references/artifact-contracts.md: resolve existing project paths first, keep generated working files under one stable task/artifact directory, and update canonical files in place. Load this shared policy only when files are written and it is not already in context.