Skill: aipoch-ai/rebuttal-letter-strategist (version 1.0.0)

--- name: rebuttal-letter-strategist description: Use rebuttal letter strategist for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries. license: MIT skill-author: AIPOCH --- # Rebuttal Letter Strategist "Soft but firm" rebuttal response generation. ## When to Use - Use this skill when the task needs Use rebuttal letter strategist for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries. - Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format. - Use this skill when you need a documented fallback path for missing inputs, execution errors, or partial evidence. ## Key Features - Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Use rebuttal letter strategist for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries. - Packaged executable path(s): `scripts/main.py`. - Reference material available in `references/` for task-specific guidance. - Structured execution path designed to keep outputs consistent and reviewable. ## Dependencies See `## Prerequisites` above for related details. - `Python`: `3.10+`. Repository baseline for current packaged skills. - `Third-party packages`: `not explicitly version-pinned in this skill package`. Add pinned versions if this skill needs stricter environment control. ## Example Usage ```bash cd "20260318/scientific-skills/Academic Writing/rebuttal-letter-strategist" python -m py_compile scripts/main.py python scripts/main.py --help ``` Example run plan: 1. Confirm the user input, output path, and any required config values. 2. Edit the in-file `CONFIG` block or documented parameters if the script uses fixed settings. 3. Run `python scripts/main.py` with the validated inputs. 4. Review the generated output and return the final artifact with any assumptions called out. ## Implementation Details See `## Workflow` above for related details. - Execution model: validate the request, choose the packaged workflow, and produce a bounded deliverable. - Input controls: confirm the source files, scope limits, output format, and acceptance criteria before running any script. - Primary implementation surface: `scripts/main.py`. - Reference guidance: `references/` contains supporting rules, prompts, or checklists. - Parameters to clarify first: input path, output path, scope filters, thresholds, and any domain-specific constraints. - Output discipline: keep results reproducible, identify assumptions explicitly, and avoid undocumented side effects. ## Quick Check Use this command to verify that the packaged script entry point can be parsed before deeper execution. ```bash python -m py_compile scripts/main.py ``` ## Audit-Ready Commands Use these concrete commands for validation. They are intentionally self-contained and avoid placeholder paths. ```bash python -m py_compile scripts/main.py python scripts/main.py --help ``` ## Workflow 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported assumptions. 3. Use the packaged script path or the documented reasoning path with only the inputs that are actually available. 4. Return a structured result that separates assumptions, deliverables, risks, and unresolved items. 5. If execution fails or inputs are incomplete, switch to the fallback path and state exactly what blocked full completion. ## Use Cases - Major revision responses - Rejection appeals - Point-by-point rebuttals ## Parameters | Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description | |-----------|------|----------|---------|-------------| | `criticism` | str | Yes | - | Reviewer comment text to respond to | | `response_type` | str | No | "Partial" | Response type: "Accept", "Partial", or "Reject" | | `evidence` | str | No | - | Supporting data for the response | ## Returns - Professionally toned response - Strategic positioning - Evidence integration ## Example Transforms "We disagree" → "We respectfully maintain..." ## Risk Assessment | Risk Indicator | Assessment | Level | |----------------|------------|-------| | Code Execution | Python/R scripts executed locally | Medium | | Network Access | No external API calls | Low | | File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium | | Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low | | Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low | ## Security Checklist - [ ] No hardcoded credentials or API keys - [ ] No unauthorized file system access (../) - [ ] Output does not expose sensitive information - [ ] Prompt injection protections in place - [ ] Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal) - [ ] Output directory restricted to workspace - [ ] Script execution in sandboxed environment - [ ] Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed) - [ ] Dependencies audited ## Prerequisites No additional Python packages required. ## Evaluation Criteria ### Success Metrics - [ ] Successfully executes main functionality - [ ] Output meets quality standards - [ ] Handles edge cases gracefully - [ ] Performance is acceptable ### Test Cases 1. **Basic Functionality**: Standard input → Expected output 2. **Edge Case**: Invalid input → Graceful error handling 3. **Performance**: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time ## Lifecycle Status - **Current Stage**: Draft - **Next Review Date**: 2026-03-06 - **Known Issues**: None - **Planned Improvements**: - Performance optimization - Additional feature support ## Output Requirements Every final response should make these items explicit when they are relevant: - Objective or requested deliverable - Inputs used and assumptions introduced - Workflow or decision path - Core result, recommendation, or artifact - Constraints, risks, caveats, or validation needs - Unresolved items and next-step checks ## Error Handling - If required inputs are missing, state exactly which fields are missing and request only the minimum additional information. - If the task goes outside the documented scope, stop instead of guessing or silently widening the assignment. - If `scripts/main.py` fails, report the failure point, summarize what still can be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback. - Do not fabricate files, citations, data, search results, or execution outcomes. ## Input Validation This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of `rebuttal-letter-strategist` and include enough context to complete the workflow safely. Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond: > `rebuttal-letter-strategist` only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill. ## References - [references/audit-reference.md](references/audit-reference.md) - Supported scope, audit commands, and fallback boundaries ## Response Template Use the following fixed structure for non-trivial requests: 1. Objective 2. Inputs Received 3. Assumptions 4. Workflow 5. Deliverable 6. Risks and Limits 7. Next Checks If the request is simple, you may compress the structure, but still keep assumptions and limits explicit when they affect correctness.

path: references/audit-reference.md
content: # Audit Reference

## Scope

- Skill: `rebuttal-letter-strategist`
- Core purpose: Use rebuttal letter strategist for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.
- Use only within the documented workflow and category boundary defined in `SKILL.md`

## Supported Audit Paths

- `python -m py_compile scripts/main.py`
- `python scripts/main.py --help`

## Fallback Boundary

If required inputs are incomplete, the skill should still return:

- the missing required inputs
- the steps that can still be completed safely
- assumptions that need confirmation before execution
- the next checks before accepting the final deliverable


path: scripts/main.py
content: #!/usr/bin/env python3
"""
Rebuttal Letter Strategist
Strategic response drafting for sharp reviewer criticisms.
"""

import argparse


class RebuttalStrategist:
    """Draft strategic rebuttal responses."""
    
    RESPONSE_TEMPLATES = {
        "minor": {
            "tone": "appreciative",
            "strategy": "Accept and thank",
            "template": "We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We have revised the manuscript accordingly."
        },
        "moderate": {
            "tone": "constructive",
            "strategy": "Acknowledge and clarify",
            "template": "We appreciate this important point. We have now clarified this in the revised manuscript."
        },
        "major": {
            "tone": "diplomatic",
            "strategy": "Address with evidence",
            "template": "We respectfully address this concern by [specific action/explanation]."
        },
        "harsh": {
            "tone": "professional",
            "strategy": "De-escalate and redirect",
            "template": "We appreciate the reviewer's critical assessment. We have carefully considered this and [response]."
        }
    }
    
    def analyze_criticism(self, criticism):
        """Analyze severity of criticism."""
        harsh_words = ["fundamentally", "seriously", "severely", "major", "critical", "flawed"]
        
        criticism_lower = criticism.lower()
        harsh_count = sum(1 for word in harsh_words if word in criticism_lower)
        
        if harsh_count >= 2:
            return "harsh"
        elif harsh_count == 1 or "significant" in criticism_lower:
            return "major"
        elif "unclear" in criticism_lower or "should" in criticism_lower:
            return "moderate"
        else:
            return "minor"
    
    def draft_response(self, criticism, revision_made):
        """Draft response to criticism."""
        severity = self.analyze_criticism(criticism)
        template = self.RESPONSE_TEMPLATES[severity]
        
        response = template["template"].replace("[specific action/explanation]", revision_made)
        response = response.replace("[response]", revision_made)
        
        return {
            "severity": severity,
            "tone": template["tone"],
            "strategy": template["strategy"],
            "response": response
        }


def main():
    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Rebuttal Letter Strategist")
    parser.add_argument("--criticism", "-c", required=True, help="Reviewer criticism")
    parser.add_argument("--revision", "-r", required=True, help="How you addressed it")
    
    args = parser.parse_args()
    
    strategist = RebuttalStrategist()
    
    result = strategist.draft_response(args.criticism, args.revision)
    
    print(f"\n{'='*60}")
    print("REBUTTAL STRATEGY")
    print(f"{'='*60}\n")
    
    print(f"Criticism severity: {result['severity'].upper()}")
    print(f"Recommended tone: {result['tone']}")
    print(f"Strategy: {result['strategy']}")
    print()
    print("Suggested response:")
    print(f"  {result['response']}")
    
    print(f"\n{'='*60}\n")


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)