Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ecopol-rebuttal
ecopol-rebuttal
GitHub用于应对经济政策会议讨论者意见并修订最终版论文。因回复与批评并列发表，需逐点分类处理：修正、承认局限或补充论证。区分学术与政策建议，强化核心结论，保持语气专业公开，确保正文直接回应关键质疑。
触发场景
收到两位讨论者的书面评论
准备与评论并列发表的最终版论文
需要根据小组辩论结果修改论文内容
需要决定在最终文本中修改还是辩护具体观点
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ecopol-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ecopol-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when responding to Economic Policy (EP) discussant comments and the panel debate — revising the paper for the camera-ready version that publishes alongside those comments. Plans the post-panel response; it does not invent evidence or citations."
}
Post-Panel Rebuttal (ecopol-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You have presented at an EP conference and have two discussants' written comments to address
- You are preparing the camera-ready version that will be published next to those comments
- The panel debate surfaced points that need a fix, a concession, or a counter-argument
- A coauthor is treating discussant comments like an anonymous referee report and missing the public, side-by-side nature
- You must decide, point by point, what to change vs. what to defend in the final text
EP rebuttal is unusual: your reply is published next to the critique
At EP there is no private response-to-referees letter. The two discussants' comments are published alongside your final paper, and a summary of the panel discussion may accompany it (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So your "rebuttal" is mostly the revised paper itself: the reader will see the critique and your paper side by side and judge whether you answered it. This reshapes strategy:
- You cannot bury a concession in a private letter. If a discussant is right, fix it in the paper or address it openly — the reader sees both documents.
- Defending in the text, not in correspondence. Where you disagree, the paper must contain the argument/evidence that answers the point, because there is no separate venue to make your case.
- Tone is collegial and on the record. Discussants are named; the exchange is part of the published scholarly conversation, not an adversarial referee fight.
Triage every discussant point
| Point type | Response |
|---|---|
| Correct and fixable | fix in the paper; note the improvement where natural |
| Correct but unfixable (data/scope limit) | concede openly in the text; bound its impact on the conclusion |
| A genuine disagreement | add the argument/evidence to the paper that answers it; acknowledge the alternative view |
| A request beyond scope | address briefly; explain why it is a separate question |
| A policy-framing concern | sharpen the policy bottom line / units (ecopol-tables-figures, ecopol-writing-style) |
For each of the two discussants, work through every substantive point with this triage; do not cherry-pick the easy ones.
Craft moves
- Map academic vs. policy comments separately. The academic discussant's points usually mean analysis changes (
ecopol-identification,ecopol-robustness); the policy discussant's usually mean framing/magnitude/legibility changes. - Strengthen the central magnitude if either discussant questioned its robustness — that is the most damaging unanswered critique given the side-by-side format.
- Address the top points in the main text, not only the appendix — the reader comparing the documents looks at the paper, not the footnotes.
- Be honest about what you did not change and why — an unanswered, visible critique is worse than a frank concession.
- Keep the policy conclusion coherent after revisions: if a fix moves the number, update the recommendation rather than leaving a stale headline.
Checklist
- Every substantive point from both discussants triaged (fix / concede / defend / scope)
- Corrections incorporated into the paper, not just promised
- Genuine disagreements answered with argument/evidence in the paper
- Central magnitude re-defended if its robustness was questioned
- Top points addressed in the main text, given the side-by-side publication
- Concessions stated openly and their impact on the conclusion bounded
- Policy bottom line still coherent after all revisions
- Tone collegial and on the record (discussants are named)
Anti-patterns
- Treating discussant comments like a private referee report you can answer in a hidden letter
- Cherry-picking the easy points and silently ignoring a hard one the reader will see next to your paper
- Defending a number a discussant credibly challenged without strengthening the robustness
- Conceding a point in correspondence but leaving the paper unchanged
- Leaving a stale policy recommendation after a revision moved the underlying estimate
Output format
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-rebuttal
【Format reality】discussant comments published alongside the paper
【Discussant 1 (academic)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Discussant 2 (policy)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Central magnitude】re-defended if challenged? Y/N
【Open concessions】stated in text + impact bounded? Y/N
【Policy bottom line】still coherent post-revision? Y/N
【Next step】finalize camera-ready → ecopol-submission (Stage 3)
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:53
