/rebuttal

To write an evidence-backed rebuttal, this Skill parses reviewer comments into atomic concerns, maps them to your wiki claims and experiment evidence, and generates traceable responses without fabrication. It breaks down each weakness into independently answerable units for full coverage.

Yes, you can stress test your rebuttal using the optional Review LLM feature, which simulates a skeptical reviewer to score your responses on a 1–5 scale. It actively prompts revisions if it detects weak arguments or overpromising commitments.

You generate a formal rebuttal by running the command line interface with your raw reviewer text file and paper slug. The Skill produces both plain-text submission-ready rebuttals and a rich version with wiki links and suggested open questions.

The best way to map peer review concerns to experiment evidence is using atomic concern parsing, which locates related claim pages and evaluates whether supporting experiments are strong, moderate, weak, or missing. This ensures traceable and formally grounded rebuttals.

When handling missing evidence for reviewer critiques, the generator identifies evidence gaps and produces suggested open questions updates. It transparently maps the weakness to your wiki claims without fabricating data or making vague commitments.