Rebuttal Response
Analyze, draft, revise, or audit scientific peer-review response letters and...
Install
npx skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill rebuttal-response -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills646
- Category
- Data and ML
- Updated
- 22d ago
- License
- MIT
- Context cost
- Mediumabout 3,000 tokens
- Runs scripts
- No, instructions only
What it does
Analyze, draft, revise, or audit scientific peer-review response letters and point-by-point rebuttals. Use for reviewer comments, response letters, rebuttals, revision summaries, quoted manuscript changes, replies that must align with a manuscript or Supplementary Information, and submission-ready checks of direct question-answer alignment, evidence, figures, tables, notes, panels, terminology, numbers, and internal citations. Especially useful when replies must reuse the reviewer's terms, map every sub-question to an explicit answer, report new analyses or experiments, identify exact revision locations, or distinguish mandatory fixes from optional polishing.
Revise Reviewer Responses
Build reviewer replies for a busy reader. Begin every formal response with a brief expression of thanks to the reviewer. Then make every answer immediately traceable to the reviewer's exact concern: lead with what was done and found, state what it means, and identify where the manuscript changed. Do not make the reviewer infer the mapping, search across paragraphs, or read defensive prose after the answer is already clear.
Start from the authoritative materials
- Identify the newest response letter, manuscript, Supplementary Information, figures, tables, and result files relevant to the comment.
- Treat the user's stated version hierarchy as binding. Do not revive text or conclusions from an older response when the user says the manuscript or SI is authoritative.
- Read the complete reviewer comment and the complete current response before editing either.
- Split the comment into independently answerable requests. Preserve the reviewer's own nouns and distinctions, including datasets, methods, comparison units, requested analyses, and claimed outcomes.
- Build a private alignment matrix with one row per request:
- reviewer's exact concern or phrase;
- direct answer;
- action or evidence;
- result;
- supported conclusion;
- revision location;
- essential evidence boundary, if one is genuinely required.
- Use the matrix as an acceptance test. Every row must appear explicitly in the response; no paragraph may substitute an adjacent analysis for the requested object.
- Never invent a result, statistic, experiment, citation, revision location, or placeholder value. Mark unavailable values explicitly or ask for the missing source.
If the task involves direct document editing, also use the relevant document skill and render the finished file for visual verification.
Analyze before drafting
Unless the user explicitly requests only final prose, begin with a short diagnosis:
