What problem does it solve?
Responding to peer review often means juggling verbatim reviewer comments, revision tracking, venue rules, and response letters by hand, which leads to missed comments, overstated claims of completed work, and responses that violate venue limits. This Skill turns reviewer feedback into an auditable, machine-checked revision and rebuttal package.
Core Features & Use Cases
- Lossless review atomization: Preserves reviewer, editor, and meta-review text verbatim with SHA-256 hashed source spans, then splits feedback into typed issues (request, claim, question, misunderstanding, editorial) with root causes.
- Truthful commitment tracking: Enforces PLANNED vs DONE states so planned experiments are never written as completed, and DONE items require real change locators plus run provenance hashes.
- Venue-rule-aware budgeting and gating: Checks response length only against the selected venue's current sourced rules (never borrowed presets), gates new-experiment requests on verified policy and user authorization, and routes rejection-driving issues back to novelty, experiment, or writing stages only after user approval.
- Use Case: After receiving a major-revision decision with three reviewer reports, use this Skill to capture the reviews (including public OpenReview forums), atomize every comment, bind each to manuscript claims and evidence, draft a point-by-point response letter, and verify the package before resubmission.
Quick Start
Use the light-review-rebuttal skill to turn these reviewer comments and my decision letter into a tracked issue matrix and draft response letter for my selected venue.
