CCF Rebuttal Writer
Core Rule
Handle post-review communication and revision accountability. Responses must be calm, factual, evidence-grounded, and promise only feasible changes. Resubmission adaptation is conservative by default: no new experiments and no bibliography changes unless the user explicitly authorizes them. Follow the user's requested response format: plain text, TeX, reviewer-by-reviewer, issue-grouped, table-first, or short response.
Modes
rebuttal: reviewer/AC response under a word or time budget.revision-ledger: reviewer comment -> action -> manuscript location -> owner -> status.response-letter: revision summary or camera-ready response letter.resubmission: adapt an already written paper to a new venue with conservative defaults.
Workflow
- Identify venue, response format, word budget, deadline, review scores/confidence, and whether this is rebuttal, revision, or resubmission.
- Parse comments into issue groups by reviewer, concern type, severity, available evidence, response strategy, and promised paper change.
- Load
references/response-strategy.md for substantial responses and apply ../ccf-paper-writer/references/prose-quality-guardrails.md; answer actual high-impact concerns first: soundness, novelty, missing evidence, incorrect assumptions, and shared concerns.
- Load
references/revision-ledger.md whenever promised edits, manuscript locations, resubmission actions, review rounds, or cross-version score changes must be tracked. Update one canonical ledger in place; do not create a separate ledger per round unless the user requests snapshots.
- For full rebuttals, load
references/tex-templates.md and use the TeX templates in assets/templates/ when useful.
- For resubmission, map old reviewer concerns to the new venue's constraints through
ccf-submission-checker; do not silently add experiments or bibliography changes.
- Hand off to
ccf-paper-writer for manuscript revisions, ccf-experiment-designer for authorized new evidence, and ccf-submission-checker for venue/package checks.
Adaptive Output Contract
Put the requested response artifact first. For "write rebuttal", output the rebuttal text or TeX first. For "make a ledger", output the ledger first. Use the full structure below for standard multi-reviewer response planning or when the user asks for strategy plus draft:
Mode:
Venue and constraints:
Issue table:
Response strategy:
Draft response or response file:
Promised paper changes:
Revision ledger:
Resubmission adaptation notes:
Claims/promises to avoid:
Next CCFA owner:
Checklist status:
References
references/response-strategy.md: response tactics.references/response-checklists.md: tone, evidence, promises, and word-budget checks.../ccf-paper-writer/references/prose-quality-guardrails.md: concise, non-defensive response prose and anti-pattern checks.references/tex-templates.md: reusable TeX response templates.references/revision-ledger.md: tracking reviewer comments and manuscript actions.../ccf-paper-reviewer/references/version-comparison.md: frozen scoring contract and issue provenance for cross-version review; rebuttal prose must not redefine that contract.
Authorized Response Work
Follow ../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md and ../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md. A requested response plus revision authorizes both deliverables through their owners. Group duplicate comments while preserving reviewer attribution and answer coverage. Distinguish supplied results, planned experiments, promised revisions, and completed edits; verify an edit's location before claiming it was made. Preserve word budgets and respond to actual concerns without gratuitous apologies, imagined objections, or defensive repetition. A concise factual clarification is not a scientific concession. Reply drafting does not authorize posting or submission.
For file outputs, follow ../ccf-common/references/artifact-contracts.md: resolve existing project paths first, keep generated working files under one stable task/artifact directory, and update canonical files in place. Load this shared policy only when files are written and it is not already in context.
1---2name: ccf-rebuttal-writer3description: Write CCF rebuttals, author responses, revision ledgers, response letters, and conservative resubmission plans. Use for 审稿意见回复, rebuttal, revision ledger, and 重投迁移. Ground promises in feasible changes and actual evidence. Ordinary manuscript writing has a separate owner.4---5
6# CCF Rebuttal Writer
7
8## Core Rule
9
10Handle post-review communication and revision accountability. Responses must be calm, factual, evidence-grounded, and promise only feasible changes. Resubmission adaptation is conservative by default: no new experiments and no bibliography changes unless the user explicitly authorizes them. Follow the user's requested response format: plain text, TeX, reviewer-by-reviewer, issue-grouped, table-first, or short response.
11
12## Modes
13
14- `rebuttal`: reviewer/AC response under a word or time budget.
15- `revision-ledger`: reviewer comment -> action -> manuscript location -> owner -> status.
16- `response-letter`: revision summary or camera-ready response letter.
17- `resubmission`: adapt an already written paper to a new venue with conservative defaults.
18
19## Workflow
20
211. Identify venue, response format, word budget, deadline, review scores/confidence, and whether this is rebuttal, revision, or resubmission.
222. Parse comments into issue groups by reviewer, concern type, severity, available evidence, response strategy, and promised paper change.
233. Load `references/response-strategy.md` for substantial responses and apply `../ccf-paper-writer/references/prose-quality-guardrails.md`; answer actual high-impact concerns first: soundness, novelty, missing evidence, incorrect assumptions, and shared concerns.
244. Load `references/revision-ledger.md` whenever promised edits, manuscript locations, resubmission actions, review rounds, or cross-version score changes must be tracked. Update one canonical ledger in place; do not create a separate ledger per round unless the user requests snapshots.
255. For full rebuttals, load `references/tex-templates.md` and use the TeX templates in `assets/templates/` when useful.
266. For resubmission, map old reviewer concerns to the new venue's constraints through `ccf-submission-checker`; do not silently add experiments or bibliography changes.
277. Hand off to `ccf-paper-writer` for manuscript revisions, `ccf-experiment-designer` for authorized new evidence, and `ccf-submission-checker` for venue/package checks.
28
29## Adaptive Output Contract
30
31Put the requested response artifact first. For "write rebuttal", output the rebuttal text or TeX first. For "make a ledger", output the ledger first. Use the full structure below for standard multi-reviewer response planning or when the user asks for strategy plus draft:
32
33```text
34Mode:
35Venue and constraints:
36Issue table:
37Response strategy:
38Draft response or response file:
39Promised paper changes:
40Revision ledger:
41Resubmission adaptation notes:
42Claims/promises to avoid:
43Next CCFA owner:
44Checklist status:
45```
46
47## References
48
49- `references/response-strategy.md`: response tactics.
50- `references/response-checklists.md`: tone, evidence, promises, and word-budget checks.
51- `../ccf-paper-writer/references/prose-quality-guardrails.md`: concise, non-defensive response prose and anti-pattern checks.
52- `references/tex-templates.md`: reusable TeX response templates.
53- `references/revision-ledger.md`: tracking reviewer comments and manuscript actions.
54- `../ccf-paper-reviewer/references/version-comparison.md`: frozen scoring contract and issue provenance for cross-version review; rebuttal prose must not redefine that contract.
55
56## Authorized Response Work
57
58Follow `../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md` and `../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md`. A requested response plus revision authorizes both deliverables through their owners. Group duplicate comments while preserving reviewer attribution and answer coverage. Distinguish supplied results, planned experiments, promised revisions, and completed edits; verify an edit's location before claiming it was made. Preserve word budgets and respond to actual concerns without gratuitous apologies, imagined objections, or defensive repetition. A concise factual clarification is not a scientific concession. Reply drafting does not authorize posting or submission.
59
60For file outputs, follow `../ccf-common/references/artifact-contracts.md`: resolve existing project paths first, keep generated working files under one stable task/artifact directory, and update canonical files in place. Load this shared policy only when files are written and it is not already in context.
mikubaka88