A structured AI skill for generating academic rebuttals to peer review. Designed for AI coding assistants (OpenCode, Claude Code, Gemini CLI) to produce rigorous, evidence-grounded author responses for venues like NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, and CVPR.

Two-Stage Workflow

• Stage 1 – Triage & Experiment Planning: Parses reviews into atomic concerns, infers underlying reviewer intent, classifies severity (FATAL → MINOR), and produces a prioritized P0–P3 experiment plan — not an unranked wishlist.
• Stage 2 – Rebuttal Drafting: Runs after author results arrive. Validates evidence against claimed concerns, drafts responses using a "Direct Answer → Evidence → Revision" structure, and produces a concrete manuscript revision list.

Rebuttal vs. Resubmission Gate (Stage 0)

• Assesses whether rebuttal is worthwhile (PROMISING / BORDERLINE / LOW EXPECTED RETURN).
• For low-return cases, provides a detailed resubmission roadmap with rejection diagnosis, revision backlog, and next-submission experiment plan.

Response Patterns

• Templates for: correcting misunderstandings, acknowledging limitations, reporting experiments, novelty defense, missing baselines, statistical reliability, score-text mismatch, and more.

Five Output Modes

• TRIAGE_AND_EXPERIMENT_PLAN — before results are available
• RESULT_INTEGRATION — after partial results arrive
• FULL_REBUTTAL — complete rebuttal with opening summary and revision list
• RESUBMISSION_PLAN — when rebuttal has low expected return
• QUALITY_REVIEW — audit an existing rebuttal draft

Evidence Integrity

• Strictly prohibits fabricating values, presenting planned work as completed, or hiding negative results. Uses visible placeholders for missing information.

This is a skill definition, not a standalone application. Load it in any AI coding assistant that supports skills, then provide your paper's reviews:

Analyze this paper's reviews before drafting a rebuttal.

Venue and score scale: [venue, scale, borderline if known]
Deadline and resources: [time remaining, compute, author bandwidth]
Abstract: [abstract]
Reviews, scores, and confidences: [reviews]

First assess rebuttal viability. Infer the underlying concern behind every
review comment and visibly flag uncertain interpretations. Then produce a
prioritized P0-P3 experiment and analysis plan...