---name: rebuttal-writingdescription: 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.argument-hint: [reviews-file]---

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, paper-revision
• Downstream: paper-compilation
• See also: data-analysis