Draft professional peer review response letters and revision rebuttals. Use when writing a response to reviewers, rebuttal letter, point-by-point response, revision letter, or appeal of a rejection decision. Triggers on: rebuttal, response to reviewers, point-by-point response, reviewer comments, revision letter, appeal rejection, 回复审稿意见, 逐条回复, 修改说明, 审稿回复. Does NOT trigger on paper-reviewer (reviewing a paper for others) or citation-checker.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Draft professional peer review response letters and revision rebuttals. Use when writing a response to reviewers, rebuttal letter, point-by-point response, revision letter, or appeal of a rejection decision. Triggers on: rebuttal, response to reviewers, point-by-point response, reviewer comments, revision letter, appeal rejection, 回复审稿意见, 逐条回复, 修改说明, 审稿回复. Does NOT trigger on paper-reviewer (reviewing a paper for others) or citation-checker.
rebuttal-writer
1. Overview
rebuttal-writer helps authors craft professional, evidence-based responses to peer reviewer comments. Two modes: full rebuttal produces a complete point-by-point response letter covering all reviewer comments; single comment drafts a focused response to one specific comment. Tone is calibrated against the revision type and journal tier using references/tone-calibration.md, and letter structure follows references/response-templates.md. When upstream modules such as paper-reviewer have already run, rebuttal-writer inherits their raw_text as the reviewer comments source and their domain, target_journal, and language fields automatically.
2. Parameters
Required
Parameter
Values
Description
reviewer_comments
string (pasted text)
The raw reviewer comments. Paste directly or inherit from context_output.raw_text if an upstream module (e.g., paper-reviewer) has already produced them.
manuscript_summary
string
A 2–3 sentence description of the study — its question, methods, and key finding. Grounds all responses in the actual work and prevents generic replies.
Optional
Parameter
Values
Description
mode
full | single (default: full)
full = complete response letter addressing all reviewer comments; single = response to one specific comment.
journal
string
Journal name. Affects formality level and the degree of assertiveness appropriate in responses.
domain
tcm | bioinformatics | clinical | pharmacology
Research domain. Affects terminology used in responses. Inherited from upstream context if available.
revision_type
minor | major | rejection_appeal
Affects tone depth and structure. If not provided, auto-detected in Step 3.
language
en | zh (default: en)
Output language for the response letter.
Parameter collection rule
Collect one at a time: reviewer_comments first, then manuscript_summary. Infer or auto-detect optional parameters per the workflow below.
3. Workflow
Step 1 — Check upstream context.
Inspect context_output before asking the user anything. If a prior module has run, extract without re-asking: domain, target_journal → journal, language, raw_text → reviewer_comments. If upstream status is failed, halt. If partial, proceed with a warning.
Step 2 — Collect missing required parameters.
If reviewer_comments is absent, ask the user to paste them. If manuscript_summary is absent, ask: "Please provide a 2–3 sentence summary of your study (research question, methods, and key finding)." Collect one at a time.
Step 3 — Detect revision_type.
If revision_type was not provided by the user and is not present in upstream context, analyze the reviewer comment text for tone signals:
If comments include any of: "reject", "fundamental flaw", "cannot recommend", "not suitable", "major conceptual issues" → propose rejection_appeal.
If comments are brief (fewer than 300 words total) and consist mainly of small requests with no structural criticisms → propose minor.
Otherwise → default to major.
Present the detected revision_type to the user (e.g., "Based on the comments, this appears to be a major revision. Does that sound right?") and wait for confirmation before proceeding.
Step 4 — Load tone calibration.
Read references/tone-calibration.md. Using the confirmed revision_type and, if known, the journal tier (top = Nature/Science/Cell/NEJM/Lancet; mid/general = all others), select the appropriate tone profile: Collegial, Respectful-assertive, or Measured-assertive. Apply the tone rules from that profile throughout drafting.
Step 5 — Load response templates.
Read references/response-templates.md. Override rule: When revision_type is rejection_appeal, Template 3 is always used regardless of mode. For all other revision types, select based on mode:
full mode → Template 1 (Full Rebuttal Letter Structure)
single mode → Template 2 (Single Comment Response)
rejection_appeal type → Template 3 (Rejection Appeal Letter)
Step 6 — Draft the response letter.
Compose the response following the selected template and tone profile.
Full mode: Parse individual numbered or bulleted items; group by reviewer. For each comment, produce three labeled sub-sections: Reviewer N, Comment M: (verbatim quote), Response: (2–8 sentences with evidence, data references, or literature), and Manuscript change: (location, or "No change required — see justification above").
Single mode: Same three-part structure for the one comment provided.
Rejection appeal: Open with a formal appeal request, summarize the study's contribution in 2 sentences, address each "fatal flaw" with direct evidence, close with a reconsideration request.
Apply domain terminology: TCM syndrome names for tcm; gene symbols in italics for bioinformatics; CONSORT/STROBE language for clinical; IUPHAR nomenclature for pharmacology. If language: zh, write in Chinese and keep reviewer comment quotes in their original language.
Step 7 — Present output and offer iteration.
Display the complete response letter. Then ask: "Would you like to adjust the tone (more assertive / more conciliatory), expand any specific response, or translate to Chinese?"
4. Output Format
[Rebuttal Letter — Mode: Full | Revision Type: Major]
Dear Editor [and Reviewers],
[Opening paragraph: 2–3 sentences of formal gratitude, noting all concerns have been
addressed and the manuscript is strengthened.]
---
REVIEWER 1
Reviewer 1, Comment 1: [Verbatim quote]
Response: [2–8 sentences. Lead with acknowledgment or respectful rebuttal. Cite
figures, tables, or literature as appropriate. State what was changed.]
Manuscript change: [Specific section and line/paragraph, or "No change required — see
justification above."]
Reviewer 1, Comment 2: [...]
Response: [...]
Manuscript change: [...]
---
REVIEWER 2
[...]
---
[Closing paragraph: 1–2 sentences expressing commitment to quality and, for rejection
appeals, a reconsideration request.]
Sincerely,
[Author names]
Header format: [Rebuttal Letter — Mode: Full | Single] [Revision Type: Minor | Major | Rejection Appeal]
If language: zh: write the entire letter in Chinese. Reviewer comment quotes remain in the original language (typically English). Use "感谢审稿人的宝贵意见" as the standard opener for each reviewer section.
5. context_output
Reads from upstream
Field
Source
Usage
raw_text
paper-reviewer, any upstream module
Used as reviewer_comments if not pasted directly by the user
domain
any upstream module
Terminology standard for domain-specific drafting
target_journal
any upstream module
Maps to journal parameter; informs journal tier detection
language
any upstream module
Output language (en or zh)
parameters.*
any upstream module
Prevents re-asking for already-collected values
Writes to output
{"module":"rebuttal-writer","summary":"Drafted full rebuttal addressing 12 reviewer comments across 2 reviewers","raw_text":"<complete response letter>","parameters":{"mode":"full | single","revision_type":"minor | major | rejection_appeal","journal":"<journal name or null>","domain":"<domain or null>","language":"en | zh"},"status":"success | partial | failed","error_message":"string | null"}
Downstream readers of raw_text: english-polisher, chinese-polisher.
6. References
See references/ for:
tone-calibration.md — Tone spectrum by revision type and journal tier; phrase-level rules for Collegial, Respectful-assertive, and Measured-assertive tones
response-templates.md — Full rebuttal letter, single comment, and rejection appeal templates; mini-guide for handling common reviewer request types
