paper-rebuttal

name	paper-rebuttal
description	Guide authors through the full rebuttal process for ML conference/journal reviews. Four phases (Understand → Task → Rebuttal → Revise) producing artifacts under 1-review/. Use when the user has received peer reviews and needs to write rebuttal responses, plan experiments to address reviewer concerns, or prepare a revised manuscript. Trigger: rebuttal, reviewer response, author response, review feedback, camera-ready revision.
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Skill
metadata	{"version":"0.1.1","last_updated":"2026-07-14","summary":"Guide authors through the full rebuttal process for ML conference/journal reviews. LAW 1: the rebuttal session is a CONSUMER -- it DISPATCHES each point to Agent(haipipe-task-orchestrator-agent) / Agent(haipipe-discovery-orchestrator-agent) as ONE general-language question (the executor scaffolds + names the task-folder), then READS the returned QA file's `- state:` line (answered → quote · working → in progress, do not re-dispatch · superseded-by → follow the chain) and NEVER writes in the bank. History: ./CHANGELOG.md."}

Skill: paper-rebuttal

Guide authors through the full rebuttal process for ML conference and journal paper reviews. Four phases from reading reviews to revising the paper, designed for multi-author collaboration.

Use this skill when the user has received peer reviews and needs to write rebuttal responses, plan experiments to address reviewer concerns, or prepare a revised manuscript. Also use when the user mentions rebuttal, reviewer response, author response, review feedback, or camera-ready revision.

---

Four-Phase Pipeline

Phase A: Understand <- Read reviews, annotate every concern Phase B: Task <- Map concerns to rebuttal points → tasks Phase C: Rebuttal <- Plan strategy + write the rebuttal responses Phase D: Revise <- Generate revision checklist → hand off to /paper-revise

Each phase produces artifacts in the review directory:

1-review/
+-- A-review-content/     <- Annotated reviews (one per reviewer)
+-- B-rebuttal-task/      <- Point → task mapping, experiment plan
+-- C-rebuttal-writing/   <- Strategy + rebuttal responses + supplementary
+-- D-paper-revision/     <- Revision checklist (→ /paper-revise)

---

Commands

/paper-rebuttal understand [review-file] -> read + annotate one reviewer /paper-rebuttal task [review-dir] -> map points → tasks /paper-rebuttal rebuttal [reviewer-id] -> plan + write one rebuttal response /paper-rebuttal revise [review-dir] -> revision checklist → /paper-revise /paper-rebuttal audit [review-dir] -> coverage + chars + consistency /paper-rebuttal supplementary [dir] -> anonymous GitHub repo + README

Default (no arg): show this command list.

Typical workflow: 1. understand (repeat for each reviewer — this is the foundation) 2. task (after all reviews are annotated) 3. rebuttal (repeat for each reviewer) 4. audit (check all responses together) 5. revise (generate checklist, hand off to /paper-revise)

---

Annotation Convention

Reviews are annotated inline by coauthors and Claude Code (CC). Each annotation uses blockquote format with initials:

> {INITIALS}: {comment}

Examples: > {AU1}: We should admit this limitation honestly. > {AU2}: Agree. Also cite the ADA 2024 guidelines here. > CC: Task {task_id} addresses this. Results: {key findings}.

Rules: - Each coauthor uses their own initials (2-3 letters, free-form) - CC is reserved for Claude Code responses - Annotations go directly below the reviewer text they respond to - Multiple coauthors can annotate the same paragraph - Language is free-form (English, Chinese, mixed — whatever is natural)

---

Execution Protocol

Step 0: Parse the subcommand from args.

Step 1: Read ref files FIRST (mandatory before proceeding). understand: ref/concepts.md task: ref/concepts.md + ref/formats.md rebuttal/audit: ref/principles.md + ref/formats.md revise: ref/principles.md

Confirm: "Loaded: [ref files]. Executing: [subcommand]."

Step 2: Read and follow the function file exactly. understand -> fn/fn-understand.md task -> fn/fn-task.md rebuttal -> fn/fn-rebuttal.md revise -> fn/fn-revise.md audit -> fn/fn-audit.md supplementary -> fn/fn-supplementary.md

---

Review Directory Structure

The skill produces artifacts in a 4-folder structure inside the paper's review directory (e.g., paper/1-review/):

1-review/
+-- README.md                       <- Overview + status
+-- HANDOFF.md                      <- Continuation prompt for new sessions
+-- A-review-content/               <- Annotated reviews (one per reviewer)
|   +-- README.md                   <- Scores + master mapping table
|   +-- review-raw.md               <- Original reviews (raw from venue)
|   +-- review-{reviewer_id}.md     <- Review + annotations + paper source refs
+-- B-rebuttal-task/                <- Point → task mapping
|   +-- README.md                   <- Point → task table + status
|   +-- probe-plan.md          <- Execution order, feasibility, deps
+-- C-rebuttal-writing/             <- Strategy + final responses
|   +-- 0-rebuttal-strategy.md      <- Reviewer goals, char budgets, table allocation
|   +-- rebuttal-{reviewer_id}.md   <- Annotated version (with > comments)
|   +-- rebuttal-{reviewer_id}-clean.md  <- Clean version (ready to paste)
|   +-- supplementary/              <- Anonymous supplementary tables
+-- D-paper-revision/               <- LaTeX changes
|   +-- revision-checklist.md       <- All changes with file:line references
+-- _archive/                       <- Old files from before reorganization

---

File Map

SKILL.md <- you are here (router) ref/concepts.md <- 5 key concepts for understanding reviews ref/principles.md <- 10 rebuttal writing principles ref/formats.md <- venue formats (ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR/journal) fn/fn-understand.md <- Phase A: read + annotate one reviewer fn/fn-task.md <- Phase B: points → tasks fn/fn-rebuttal.md <- Phase C: plan strategy + write one response fn/fn-revise.md <- Phase D: revision checklist → /paper-revise fn/fn-audit.md <- coverage + chars + consistency check fn/fn-supplementary.md <- anonymous GitHub repo setup