vr-rebuttal

name	vr-rebuttal
description	Writes a systematic rebuttal to reviewer comments. Classifies each comment and determines accept/rebut/partial-accept to generate a persuasive response.
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	["paper-directory"]

Rebuttal

Writes a systematic rebuttal to reviewer comments.

Input

$ARGUMENTS - Paper directory path (directory containing review.md)

Alternatively, the user may directly provide reviewer comment text.

Process

Step 1: Collect and Parse Review Comments

• Read papers/<dir>/review.md
• Collect external reviewer comments if available
• Separate each comment into individual items

Step 2: Classify Comments

Classify each comment:

• Major: Validity of results, methodology issues, missing key experiments, etc.
• Minor: Phrasing improvements, typos, additional references, etc.
• Question: Questions requiring additional explanation

Step 3: Develop Response Strategy

Determine the response direction for each comment:

• Accept: The reviewer's point is valid; reflect the correction
• Rebut: Defend the original claim with supporting evidence
• Partial Accept: Accept part of the feedback while maintaining the core argument

Step 4: Write the Rebuttal

Write a persuasive response for each comment:

• Quote the reviewer's comment accurately
• Begin with an expression of gratitude ("We thank the reviewer for...")
• Provide specific evidence (data, numbers, references)
• If revisions were made, state them explicitly ("We have updated Section X to...")
• Include additional experimental results if available

Evidence Search for Rebuttals

When building evidence for "Rebut" responses, read .claude/skills/_shared/paper-search-protocol.md and execute a Level 2 search focused on: "papers supporting [claim being defended] or demonstrating precedent for [methodological choice]". Cite discovered papers as evidence.

Step 5: Determine Need for Additional Experiments

• Identify additional experiments requested by the reviewer
• Distinguish between feasible additional experiments and those out of scope
• If needed, suggest running /vr-ablation-study

Step 6: Organize Paper Revisions

Organize the revisions promised in the rebuttal in diff format:

• Sections and content to revise
• Experiments/analyses to add
• Expressions to delete or change

Output

Save the results in the paper directory.

File Structure

papers/<paper-dir>/
├── rebuttal.md             # Rebuttal document
└── revision_plan.md        # Paper revision plan

rebuttal.md Format

# Rebuttal: [Paper Title]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## General Response
[Overall expression of gratitude and summary of major changes]

---

## Reviewer Comments and Responses

### [Major] Comment 1: [Comment summary]
> [Reviewer's original comment]

**Response: [Accept/Rebut/Partial Accept]**

[Detailed response]

**Revisions**: [Specific revision details, if applicable]

---

### [Major] Comment 2: [Comment summary]
> [Reviewer's original comment]

**Response: [Accept/Rebut/Partial Accept]**

[Detailed response]

---

### [Minor] Comment 3: [Comment summary]
> [Reviewer's original comment]

**Response: Accept**

[Revision details]

---

## Summary of Changes
| # | Comment | Response | Revision Location |
|---|---------|----------|-------------------|
| 1 | [Summary] | Accept | Section 3.2 |
| 2 | [Summary] | Rebut | - |
| 3 | [Summary] | Accept | Section 5 |

## Additional Experiments Needed
- [ ] [Experiment 1 description] → Recommend running `/vr-ablation-study`
- [ ] [Experiment 2 description] → Can reuse existing experiments

## Newly Cited References
[BibTeX entries for papers discovered during evidence search]

Notes

• Maintain a polite and professional tone
• Express gratitude for the reviewer's time and effort
• Write in a constructive rather than defensive manner
• Promised revisions must be feasible to implement
• When rebutting, provide specific data or logical justification
• If the venue has a rebuttal length limit, confirm with the user