# Stem Rebuttal Writer

> Draft reviewer responses, rebuttal letters, response-to-reviewers documents, revision plans, and point-by-point replies for STEM journal and conference submissions. Use when users have reviewer comments, decision letters, major/minor revision requests, reject-and-resubmit advice, or conference rebuttal constraints. Trigger phrases include rebuttal, response to reviewers, revision letter, reviewer comments, major revision, minor revision, appeal, point-by-point response, and Chinese requests about shengao huifu or fanxiu.

- Skill: `xiangdong-415/stem-rebuttal-writer` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add xiangdong-415/stem-rebuttal-writer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/xiangdong-415/stem-rebuttal-writer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: Xiangdong-415 (https://skillmd.com/u/xiangdong-415)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/xiangdong-415/stem-rebuttal-writer

---


# STEM Rebuttal Writer

## Purpose

Use this skill to turn reviewer comments into a calm, strategic, technically credible response. It is designed for STEM journals and conferences where the response must be respectful, specific, and evidence-based.

## Inputs To Ask For

- Decision letter and reviewer comments.
- Manuscript title, field, and target venue.
- User's planned changes or constraints.
- Page, line, figure, table, or section references if available.
- Rebuttal length limit for conferences.

## Workflow

1. Triage comments.
   - Classify each comment as fatal risk, major revision, minor revision, misunderstanding, request for clarification, or optional suggestion.
   - Group duplicate comments across reviewers.

2. Build response strategy.
   - Accept valid criticism plainly.
   - Explain revisions with exact manuscript locations.
   - For disagreements, provide evidence and stay concise.
   - Avoid defensive wording.

3. Draft point-by-point replies.
   - Thank the reviewer.
   - State the action taken.
   - Summarize the new or revised text, experiment, analysis, figure, or limitation.
   - Reference manuscript location.

4. Handle hard cases.
   - Missing experiment: propose added experiment, justify why impossible, or add limitation if truly infeasible.
   - Misunderstanding: revise manuscript so future readers will not misunderstand.
   - Conflicting reviewer requests: explain balanced revision.
   - Overbroad request: narrow the feasible scope and justify.

5. Prepare revision plan.
   - List manuscript changes in priority order.
   - Identify experiments or analyses that must be completed before final response.

## Response Templates

Use respectful, direct language:

```text
We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have revised Section X to clarify ...
```

```text
We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently justify ... We have added ...
```

```text
We respectfully clarify that ... To avoid this ambiguity, we revised ...
```

## Output Format

Provide:

- Comment triage table.
- Revision action plan.
- Point-by-point response draft.
- Short cover letter to the editor or area chair when appropriate.
- Risk notes for comments that require new experiments or supervisor confirmation.

## Quality Checklist

- Every reviewer comment receives a direct answer.
- The response says what changed and where.
- Disagreements are evidence-based and restrained.
- New claims are supported by manuscript changes.
- The tone is appreciative, professional, and not apologetic beyond what is warranted.