rebuttal

Parse reviews into an issue board and draft venue-compliant rebuttals.

Updated May 25, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/duypham2801/ThS_LLM --skill rebuttal-duypham2801
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: rebuttal
Source: https://github.com/duypham2801/ThS_LLM/tree/main/.claude/skills/rebuttal
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/duypham2801/ThS_LLM --skill rebuttal-duypham2801

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

The rebuttal skill helps you transform external reviews into a venue-compliant, evidence-grounded response that covers every concern without fabricating results or overcommitting.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Review parsing and issue board creation: Normalizes raw reviews into atomic, trackable concerns with anchors and statuses.
  • Strategy planning with character-budgeting: Chooses response modes per issue, prioritizes pivotal reviewers, and builds an actionable plan.
  • Safety-guarded drafting and validation: Enforces provenance, commitment, and coverage gates, then runs a stress-test loop to catch weak or risky language.
  • Supports two response formats: Single shared document (one consolidated rebuttal) or per-reviewer thread replies.
  • Follow-up round management: Logs new reviewer comments, drafts deltas only, and updates the revision checklist.

Quick Start

Use the rebuttal skill by running it with your paper path and pasted reviewer bundle, and include venue rules and the character/word limit so it can safely draft a text-only rebuttal.

Frequently Asked Questions about rebuttal

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I draft an OpenReview response that stays within the character limit?

To draft an OpenReview response within limits, the rebuttal skill parses reviewer feedback into an issue board and applies strategy planning with character-budgeting to produce paste-ready text. It requires explicit venue rules and character limits to allocate response space safely.

What is the best way to structure a peer review rebuttal for ICML?

The best way to structure a peer review rebuttal is by normalizing raw reviews into atomic, trackable concerns with anchors, then drafting responses using a strategy plan. This method ensures full coverage of reviewer concerns while maintaining provenance for every factual claim.

Can I write grounded revision responses without fabricating experimental results?

Yes, you can write grounded revision responses without fabricating results by enforcing strict safety gates during drafting. The skill runs a stress-test loop to catch weak or risky language, ensuring every factual claim is traceable to provided paper content or user-confirmed evidence.

Does the rebuttal skill support per-reviewer thread replies or only a single document?

The rebuttal skill supports both per-reviewer thread replies and a single shared consolidated document. You can choose either rendering mode to generate paste-ready or thread-ready artifacts based on your venue's specific format requirements.

How do I manage follow-up rounds after submitting an initial reviewer rebuttal?

To manage follow-up rounds after submitting an initial reviewer rebuttal, the skill logs new reviewer comments and drafts deltas only. It automatically updates your revision checklist while maintaining the provenance and safety gates established in the initial response.

What do I need to provide to generate a venue-compliant rebuttal?

To generate a venue-compliant rebuttal, you need to provide your paper path, pasted reviewer bundle, explicit venue rules, and character or word limits. The skill uses your paper content as provenance and requests user-confirmed evidence when needed to ensure grounding.