Skill

sci-review

Drafts, refines, and responds to academic literature reviews and peer review rebuttals for CS/ML venues like NeurIPS using 4-stage structure and professional guides. Triggers on 'draft literature review' or 'respond to reviewers'.

ai-ml

documentation

npx claudepluginhub shzhao27208/aut_sci_write --plugin academic-skills

Tool Access

This skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.

Preview

This skill consolidates professional academic writing logic to help authors create high-impact literature reviews and effective responses to peer reviewers.

Supporting Assets

_meta.jsonreferences/rebuttal-guide.mdreferences/section-guide.mdreferences/word-choice.mdtemplates/literature-review-template.mdtemplates/rebuttal-template.md

SKILL.md

Similar Skills

review-response

3.5k

Analyzes reviewer comments on academic papers, classifies issues, recommends response strategies, and drafts professional rebuttals with tone optimization.

5 files

claude-scholar

peer-review

Generates structured peer review reports for academic manuscripts, evaluating novelty, methodological rigor, clarity, impact, and ethics. Use when critiquing papers or providing reviewer feedback.

co-researcher

paper-self-review

Self-reviews academic paper paragraphs (intro, abstract, method, related work) to diagnose v1 issues like logic gaps, repetition, and detail leakage, providing targeted revision directions.

1 file

sjh-skills

Stats

Stars13

Forks4

Last CommitApr 9, 2026

Actions

View Source View Plugin View on GitHub View README

Help us improve

Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.

Scientific Review & Rebuttal Skill

This skill consolidates professional academic writing logic to help authors create high-impact literature reviews and effective responses to peer reviewers.

Core Capabilities

1. Literature Review Orchestration

Follows a rigorous 4-stage structure optimized for high-tier journals (JCR Q1+ standards):

Introduction: Background -> Problem Definition -> Gap Identification -> Contribution.
Methodology/Materials: Systematic classification, cross-method comparison, and performance benchmarking.
Challenges (3-Layer structure): Phenomenon (What is wrong) -> Cause (Why it is wrong) -> Direction (How to fix it).
Conclusion: Distilled insights and future roadmap.

2. Professional Rebuttal Drafting

Transforms author responses from defensive arguments into professional technical dialogues:

Tone Control: Replaces "reviewer misunderstood" with "we will clarify in the text".
Evidence-Driven: Prioritizes numerical data, paper quotes, and specific section references.
Structure: Systematic addressing of factual errors, missing experiments, and conceptual disagreements.

Usage Guide

Drafting a Review

When asked to start a review:

Define Taxonomy: Establish 5-8 clear dimensions for classification.
Comparative Analysis: Always use evidence-based comparisons (numerical data over vague descriptors).
Future Outlook: Ensure the "Challenges" section follows the Phenomenon-Cause-Direction hierarchy.

Writing a Rebuttal

When asked to respond to reviewers:

Quoting: Quote the core of the reviewer's concern accurately.
Direct Action: Each response should ideally result in a concrete commitment to revise the manuscript.
Word Economy: Focus on major concerns (Reviewer scores/Gatekeeper comments) first.

Best Practices

Read First: Always read the source literature or reviewer comments thoroughly before generating content.
No Fillers: Remove phrases like "it is worth noting" or "as we all know".
Precision: Replace "significantly better" with "X% improvement over [Baseline]".