rebuttal

Generate venue-compliant rebuttals from reviewer comments with provenance checks.

Updated May 29, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Mang30/myskills --skill rebuttal-mang30
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: rebuttal
Source: https://github.com/Mang30/myskills/tree/main/skills/rebuttal
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Mang30/myskills --skill rebuttal-mang30

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Producing a strong post-submission rebuttal that accurately covers each reviewer’s concerns without inventing evidence and while staying within venue constraints.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Grounded rebuttal drafting: Parses external reviews, atomizes concerns into actionable issue cards, and produces a text-only rebuttal that matches the specified venue limit.
  • Coverage and safety enforcement: Applies provenance, commitment, and coverage gates so every factual claim is sourced and every reviewer concern is either answered, deferred intentionally, or marked for user input.
  • Single-document or per-reviewer thread outputs: Supports ICML-style shared rebuttals and OpenReview-style per-reviewer responses, with optional stress-testing for risky phrasing and promises.
  • Follow-up rounds management: Maintains state and an auditable revision plan across initial and subsequent rebuttal iterations.

Quick Start

Use the rebuttal workflow to generate a venue-compliant rebuttal by providing your paper path and the raw reviewer bundle, then specify the venue and character limit as part of the request.

Frequently Asked Questions about rebuttal

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I draft a venue-compliant reviewer rebuttal without inventing evidence?

This skill drafts a venue-compliant reviewer rebuttal by parsing external reviews, atomizing concerns into issue cards, and enforcing provenance gates to ensure every factual claim is sourced from your paper and user-confirmed.

What is the best way to format an OpenReview per-reviewer thread response?

The best way to format an OpenReview per-reviewer thread response is to generate per-reviewer outputs that answer concerns individually, maintaining state across follow-up rounds to produce a strict paste-ready artifact within character limits.

Can I use this rebuttal workflow for ICML-style text-only responses?

Yes, you can use this workflow for ICML-style text-only responses by specifying the venue and character limit, which generates a single-document shared rebuttal that matches the required constraints.

How do I ensure full coverage of every reviewer concern during revision planning?

To ensure full coverage of every reviewer concern during revision planning, the skill applies coverage gates so each issue is answered, intentionally deferred, or marked for user input, while maintaining an auditable revision plan across iterations.

What are the limitations of automated peer review rebuttal drafting?

A key limitation of automated peer review rebuttal drafting is commitment safety: the skill cannot make promises about future work without explicit user confirmation, and risky phrasing requires optional stress-testing before final output.

Do I need to provide raw reviewer comments to generate a grounded rebuttal?

Yes, you need to provide raw reviewer comments and your paper path as input, which the skill uses to extract provenance and generate a text-only rebuttal that fully covers all stated concerns.