Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →runtsang/review-response
Systematic review response strategy guide for RebuttalStudio.
Passed 18 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 13 of 22 without it.
and 5 more in the full report
5 fixed13 passed either way4 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
RebuttalStudio Utility — Stage-General This skill applies across the full 5-stage rebuttal pipeline. It provides strategic guidance for classifying reviewer comments and choosing response approaches, complementing the stage-specific breakdown and refinement skills.
A systematic framework for analyzing reviewer comments and developing high-quality, professionally grounded rebuttal responses.
Every reviewer comment belongs to one of four types. Identify the type before selecting a strategy.
| Type | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Major | Core scientific or methodological concerns that affect the paper's conclusions | "The baseline comparison is unfair", "The claims are unsupported by experiments" |
| Minor | Peripheral concerns about presentation, wording, or supplementary experiments | "Figure 3 is hard to read", "Missing ablation on X" |
| Misunderstanding | Reviewer has misread or misinterpreted the paper | "The authors do not compare with Y" (but Y is in Table 2) |
| Typo / Clarity | Factual errors, grammar, or unclear exposition | "Definition 2 appears to be incorrect", "Section 3 is confusing" |
After classification, select the appropriate response strategy:
| Strategy | When to Use | Core Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Reviewer is correct; the concern is valid | Acknowledge explicitly, describe the change made, point to location |
| Defend | Reviewer's concern is based on a valid scientific disagreement | Provide evidence, cite prior work, offer additional data if available |
| Clarify | Reviewer has a misunderstanding that the paper actually addresses | Quote the relevant section, explain why the concern does not apply |
| Experiment | Reviewer requests additional empirical validation | Describe the experiment, provide preliminary results if possible |
These apply to every response at every stage, from Stage 2 draft outlines to Stage 4 follow-up refinement:
test cases passed, vs 13 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.