/rebuttal

name: rebuttal
description: "Workflow 4: Submission rebuttal pipeline. Parses external reviews, enforces coverage and grounding, drafts a safe text-only rebuttal under venue limits, and manages follow-up rounds. Use when user says \"rebuttal\", \"reply to reviewers\", \"ICML rebuttal\", \"OpenReview response\", or wants to answer external reviews safely."
argument-hint: "[paper-path-or-review-bundle]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Skill, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, mcp__manual_review__review, mcp__manual_review__review_reply, mcp__antigravity__antigravity, mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply, mcp__grok__grok, mcp__grok__grok-reply, mcp__claude-review__review, mcp__claude-review__review_reply, mcp__claude-review__review_start, mcp__claude-review__review_reply_start, mcp__claude-review__review_status

Workflow 4: Rebuttal

> **Before each reviewer slot**, follow [Selectable Reviewers](../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md): > resolve invocation → `.aris/reviewer.json` → Claude Code default (Codex MCP) > with `reviewer_route.py` through the canonical helper resolver, preserving this > slot's tier, fresh contexts, source/image inputs and deterministic gates. > Codex examples/pins below apply only to `backend=codex`; other routes use their > own first-call/reply contract. Save the route and actual returned identity; > unavailable selections are `REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE`. Classify acceptance from actual > families/completion/scope. Forward invocation reviewer/model/effort overrides > to reviewer-bearing children. Generation workers are unchanged.

Prepare and maintain a grounded, venue-compliant rebuttal for: **$ARGUMENTS**

Scope

This skill is optimized for:

• **text-only rebuttal** under strict character/word limits (e.g. ICML single-document)
• **per-reviewer thread responses** where each reviewer renders independently (e.g. OpenReview-style)
• **multiple reviewers** with shared and reviewer-specific concerns
• **follow-up rounds** after the initial rebuttal
• safe drafting with **no fabrication**, **no overpromise**, and **full issue coverage**

This skill does **not**:

• run new experiments automatically
• generate new theorem claims automatically
• edit or upload a revised PDF
• submit to OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP

If the user already has new results, derivations, or approved commitments, the skill can incorporate them as **user-confirmed evidence**.

Lifecycle Position

Workflow 1:   idea-discovery
Workflow 1.5: experiment-bridge
Workflow 2:   auto-review-loop (pre-submission)
Workflow 3:   paper-writing
Workflow 4:   rebuttal (post-submission external reviews)

Constants

• **VENUE = `ICML`** — Default venue. Override if needed.
• **RESPONSE_MODE = `TEXT_ONLY`** — v1 default.
• **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-6-astra`** — Default model for the Codex backend. Used for internal stress-testing. Manual backend uses a model the user chooses — it must be a recognized model from a different family (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Moonshot/Kimi, Qwen).
• **REVIEWER_BACKEND = `codex`** — Default: Codex MCP (xhigh). Override with `— reviewer: oracle-pro` for Oracle MCP, or `— reviewer: manual` for Manual Review MCP. If manual-review MCP is unavailable, stop and print the install command; do not fall back to Codex. See `shared-references/reviewer-routing.md`.
• **MAX_INTERNAL_DRAFT_ROUNDS = 2** — draft → lint → revise.
• **VENUE_MODE = `single_document`** — `single_document` for one shared author response, or `per_reviewer_thread` when each reviewer thread renders independently. Confirm the venue/interface before drafting if unclear. Affects Phase 4/7 output shape.
• **STRESS_TEST_ROUNDS_BASE = 1** — One external reviewer critique round on the full response set. Add focused rounds for `reviewer_priority: pivotal` responses, terminating when the reviewer returns no new substantive issues. Hard cap at 5.
• **MAX_FOLLOWUP_ROUNDS = 3** — per reviewer thread.
• **AUTO_EXPERIMENT = false** — When `true`, automatically invoke `/experiment-bridge` to run supplementary experiments when the strategy plan identifies reviewer concerns that require new empirical evidence. When `false` (default), pause and present the evidence gap to the user for manual handling.
• **QUICK_MODE = false** — When `true`, only run Phase 0-3 (parse reviews, atomize concerns, build strategy). Outputs `ISSUE_BOARD.md` + `STRATEGY_PLAN.md` and stops — no drafting, no stress test. Useful for quickly understanding what reviewers want before deciding how to respond.
• **REBUTTAL_DIR = `rebuttal/`**
• **RENDER_HTML = true** — When `true` (default), auto-render `rebuttal/REBUTTAL_DRAFT_rich.md` (the detailed reviewer-facing draft) to HTML after Phase 6 / Phase 8 finalization. Uses **full Codex review gate** (final pre-submission deliverable — reviewer-facing content, render fidelity matters). The plain-text `PASTE_READY.txt` is NOT rendered (it's character-counted plain text by design). Set `false` to skip, or pass `— render html: false`.

> Override: `/rebuttal "paper/" — venue: NeurIPS, character limit: 5000`

Reviewer Calling Convention

When calling the reviewer for stress-testing, branch on REVIEWER_BACKEND:

**If REVIEWER_BACKEND = `codex`:** Use `mcp__codex__codex` for new review threads. Use `mcp__codex__codex-reply` for follow-up rounds (reuse threadId).

**If REVIEWER_BACKEND = `manual`:** Use `mcp__manual_review__review` for new review threads with: prompt: [exact same prompt that would go to Codex] config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh", "executor_model": "<actual executor model>", "require_reviewer_model": true} Save the returned `threadId`. Use `mcp__manual_review__review_reply` for follow-up rounds with: threadId: [saved manual-review threadId] prompt: [follow-up prompt] config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh", "executor_model": "<actual executor model>", "require_reviewer_model": true}

Prompt fidelity: the manual