From jbf-skills
Guides response to a Journal of Banking & Finance revise-and-resubmit: triage referee comments by priority, strengthen identification, add robustness checks, preserve anonymity, and draft a point-by-point response letter with standard JBF fixes.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jbf-skills:jbf-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- JBF returns a major or minor revision decision
Classify every comment:
We thank the referee for raising this point. We now [change made]. The new
analysis appears in Table X / Appendix Table Y and shows [result]. We also revised
page Z to clarify [interpretation]. This addresses the concern because [logic].
| Typical JBF referee ask | Standard fix | Where it goes |
|---|---|---|
| "Plain TWFE is biased under staggered adoption" | Re-estimate with a heterogeneity-robust DID estimator; show both side by side | main table + event-study figure |
| "Results may be a crisis artifact" | Re-run excluding 2007–09 (and 2020 if in sample); report stability | appendix panel cited in the text |
| "Cluster at the policy level, not the bank" | Re-cluster; wild-cluster bootstrap if clusters are few | table notes + one robustness column |
| "Economic significance is unclear" | Convert to basis points / % of assets / capital-ratio points against a stated benchmark | results text + abstract |
| "The policy conclusion overreaches" | Bound the claim to the identified margin and treated population | conclusion rewrite, flagged in the letter |
Referee: "Your staggered-deregulation DID relies on TWFE, which recent econometrics shows can be badly weighted."
Dear Editor,
[1] One paragraph on what the revision does, led by the editor's own concern.
[2] Summary table: comment -> change -> location (table/page).
Referee 1
R1.1 [restate the point fairly] / Response: [evidence, exact table and page]
...
Referee 2 ...
[Closing] remaining limitations stated plainly; no new unflagged claims.
For the response letter, maintain a ledger:
Comment | New evidence | Location | Effect on claim | Remaining limitation
Every must-do comment should have a new evidence row or a clearly justified infeasibility row. If a new test weakens the headline result, state the narrower finance interpretation and update the introduction. JBF rebuttals are strongest when the response letter, manuscript text, and appendix all tell the same story about identification, data limits, and economic magnitude.
[Decision type] major / minor / conditional
[Editor priority] ...
[Comment matrix] must-do / should-do / negotiate / clarify
[New analyses] ...
[Response tone] grateful, precise, evidence-led
[Next step] revise manuscript + response letter
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jbf-skillsStructures response letters and revision plans for Journal of Finance revise-and-resubmit submissions. Guides triaging editor and referee points, keeping within page limits, and routing robustness to the Internet Appendix.
Creates a prioritized point-by-point rebuttal and revision plan for JMCB decision letters and referee reports. Handles conflicting referee requests and identification/measurement demands.
Plans strategy and structure for a JFQA revise-and-resubmit response, including point-by-point replies, new robustness/identification evidence, and code-archive readiness.