/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
$ npx -y skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill rebuttal --agent claude-codeHow 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.mdname: 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
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
· · · · · · -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
Other skills on auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep.
- /ablation-planner
Use when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission.
Open skill - /alphaxiv
Quick single-paper lookup via AlphaXiv LLM-optimized summaries with tiered source fallback. Use when user says "explain this paper", "summarize paper", pastes an arXiv/AlphaXiv URL, or provides a bare arXiv ID for quick understanding - not for broad literature search.
Open skill - /analyze-results
Analyze ML experiment results, compute statistics, generate comparison tables and insights. Use when user says "analyze results", "compare", or needs to interpret experimental data.
Open skill - /arxiv
Search, download, and summarize academic papers from arXiv. Use when user says "search arxiv", "download paper", "fetch arxiv", "arxiv search", "get paper pdf", or wants to find and save papers from arXiv to the local paper library.
Open skill - /auto-paper-improvement-loop
Autonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-5.6-Sol xhigh review → implement fixes → recompile, for 2 rounds. Use when user says \"改论文\", \"improve paper\", \"论文润色循环\", \"auto improve\", or wants to iteratively polish a generated paper.
Open skill - /auto-review-loop-llm
Autonomous research review loop using any OpenAI-compatible LLM API. Configure via llm-chat MCP server or environment variables. Trigger with "auto review loop llm" or "llm review".
Open skill

