Skip to content
Automation
Skill

/rebuttal

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

From plugin
auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
14k187 skills
Install
$ npx -y skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill rebuttal --agent claude-code

How it fires

How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.

  • Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
  • You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
  • Slash command/rebuttal

Context preview

The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.

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

SKILL.md

rebuttal.SKILL.md
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

Workflow 4: Rebuttal

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-5.6-sol`** — Default model for the Codex backend. Used for internal stress-testing. Manual backend uses whatever model the user chooses.
  • **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"} 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"}

Prompt fidelity: the manual prompt must be exactly the same text that Codex would receive. Review tracing applies equally to both backends.

Required Inputs

1. **Paper source** — PDF, LaTeX directory, or narrative summary 2. **Raw reviews** — pasted text, markdown, or PDF with reviewer IDs 3. **Venue rules** — venue name, character/word limit, text-only or revised PDF allowed, rendering mode (one shared response or independent reviewer threads) 4. **Current stage** — initial rebuttal or follow-up round

If venue rules, limit, or rendering mode are missing, **stop and ask** before drafting.

Safety Model

Three hard gates — if any fails, do NOT finalize:

1. **Provenance gate** — every factual statement maps to: `paper`, `review`, `user_confirmed_result`, `user_confirmed_derivation`, or `future_work`. No source = blocked. 2. **Commitment gate** — every promise maps to: `already_done`, `approved_for_rebuttal`, or `future_work_only`. Not approved = blocked. 3. **Coverage gate** — every reviewer concern ends in: `answered`, `deferred_intentionally`, or `needs_user_input`. No issue disappears.

Workflow

Phase 0: Resume or Initialize

1. If `rebuttal/REBUTTAL_STATE.md` exists → resume from recorded phase 2. Otherwise → create `rebuttal/`, initialize all output documents 3. L

Read more
Ships withauto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

· · · · · · -orange?style=flat) · · 💬 Join Community · 💡 Use ARIS as a skill-based workflow in Claude Code / Codex CLI / Cursor / Trae / Antigravity / GitHub Copilot CLI / OpenClaw, or get the full experience with the standalone ARIS-Code CLI — enjoy any

Get the whole plugin
Stats
14,445
Stars
1,280
Forks
Active
Maintenance
Python
Language
MIT
License
11h ago
Last commit
5mo ago
Created

Repo: wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep