Individual skill
respol-rebuttal
Use when drafting the response to a Research Policy (RP) decision letter — converting double-blind referee and handling-editor comments into a point-by-point response and a revision plan that protects the innovation-studies contribution. Builds the response strategy; it is the terminal skill in the pack.
Research-Policy-Skills/skills/respol-rebuttal/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,404
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- research Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,264 bytes
Read excerpt
# Rebuttal Strategy (respol-rebuttal)
## When to trigger
- An RP major/minor revision arrived and you must turn comments into a response letter
- Referees disagree with each other and you need a coherent line across both
- A referee challenges a patent/bibliometric construct, an identification choice, or the scope
- The handling editor's summary signals which points are binding for acceptance
- You are tempted to concede everything (losing the contribution) or rebut everything (losing the editor)
## How RP rebuttals are read
The **Handling Editor** who managed your double-blind review reads the response and decides. Their summary letter is the priority signal: address those points first and unambiguously. Referees are innovation-studies experts, so a credible response defends the *innovation claim and its constructs* with evidence, not rhetoric — and concedes gracefully where they are right. The fastest route to a second rejection is a response that argues with referees instead of resolving their concern, or that fixes wording while leaving a substantive construct/identification challenge unanswered.
