What problem does it solve? Responding to peer reviews after paper submission is high-stakes and error-prone: authors must cover every reviewer concern, stay within strict character limits, avoid fabricating evidence, and never overpromise revisions. This Skill structures the entire rebuttal pipeline so no concern is dropped and no unsupported claim slips through. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Review parsing and issue tracking: Normalizes raw reviews, atomizes every concern into an issue board with severity, reviewer stance, and response mode, then builds a strategy plan with character budgets. - Safety-gated drafting: Enforces provenance, commitment, and coverage gates so every factual statement maps to the paper, reviews, or user-confirmed evidence, and every promised revision appears in a revision checklist. - Stress testing and follow-ups: Runs external reviewer stress-test rounds via Codex or manual review backends, supports per-reviewer thread or single-document venue modes, and manages follow-up rounds with delta replies. - Use Case: After receiving ICML reviews on OpenReview, point the Skill at your paper and the raw reviews to get an issue board, a strategy plan, a character-counted paste-ready response, and a revision plan for the camera-ready. ## Quick Start Run the rebuttal workflow on my paper directory and the pasted reviewer comments to produce a venue-compliant draft response.
