rebuttal-guidance

Provides actionable peer-review rebuttal guidance (not full rebuttal prose) using conditional persuasion P(Z|X,Y): match reviewer mindset X, recommend strategy Y, optionally ground in manuscript evidence and similar successful historical (review, rebuttal) pairs. Use when the user pastes reviewer comments, asks for rebuttal help, rebuttal guidance, response to reviewers, how to reply to R1.W2, OpenReview rebuttal, or the reviewer ignored the rebuttal.

Quality

89%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

Well-structured, lean, and well-organized content with strong progressive disclosure and a clear multi-step workflow including a validation gate. Actionability and workflow clarity sit just below the top anchor because the decision logic and an explicit fix-retry loop are delegated/implied rather than fully inline.

Suggestions

Spell out the integrity-gate recovery loop explicitly (e.g., 'if a flag fires, return to the relevant Step 5 block, correct it, and re-run the checklist') to push workflow_clarity toward 5.

Inline the most common-case decision (e.g., the top 2-3 mindset clusters with their key strategy) so the skill is executable without always opening references.

Trim the Overview's restatement of the description (the 'not full rebuttal prose' and P(Z|X,Y) framing) to reduce redundancy with the frontmatter.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's intelligence (no padding about what rebuttals or conferences are), with only mild redundancy where the Overview restates the description's framing; not quite the every-token-earns-its-place level of a 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete copy-paste structures (a concern table format and an 8-field guidance block template) plus inline classification tags and specific file pointers, but the core decision logic lives in referenced files, leaving minor inline gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Seven steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit Step 6 integrity-gate validation checkpoint and checklist, but the fix-and-revalidate recovery loop is implied via flagging rather than spelled out as a retry loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A clear overview points to six one-level-deep reference files (all verified present) via inline links plus a Reference map table, with bulk data appropriately split out and easy navigation.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

95%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with rich natural trigger terms and a distinct niche. The only minor weakness is that the listed actions are somewhat abstract rather than granular operations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and lists several concrete actions ('match reviewer mindset X', 'recommend strategy Y', 'ground in manuscript evidence', 'ground in... historical pairs'), but the actions sit at a higher altitude than the anchor's granular verbs, so it is not a clean 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (provides rebuttal guidance via conditional persuasion P(Z\|X,Y)) and 'when' (Use when the user pastes reviewer comments...) with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The 'Use when...' clause covers comprehensive natural terms with synonyms ('rebuttal help', 'rebuttal guidance', 'response to reviewers', 'how to reply to R1.W2', 'OpenReview rebuttal', 'reviewer ignored the rebuttal'), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It occupies a clear niche (peer-review rebuttal guidance) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: HKUSTDial/Supervisor-Skills
Path: skills/rebuttal-guidance/SKILL.md
Commit: 207bc6f

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.