New: 98,000+ skills indexed from GitHub repos with 100+ stars · every skill safety-checkedBrowse top skillsTop skills
Esc to closeBrowse all skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills

Agent skill

Finman Rebuttal

by brycewang-stanford in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

A skill your agent uses when a Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted.

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Finman Rebuttal

skills CLI
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill finman-rebuttal -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills finman-rebuttal --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/Financial-Management-Skills/skills/finman-rebuttal .claude/skills/finman-rebuttal && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
finman-rebuttal
GitHub stars
1.2k
Token cost
~1.9k tokens
SKILL.md length
945 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
2,387
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when a Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted.

  • Works in 5 steps: Opening summary — thank the editor and… → Point-by-point — quote each comment,… → Tone — gracious, concrete,… → …
  • A Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R
  • SKILL.md covers When to trigger, How to read an FM decision, Response-letter structure and Triage table, plus 6 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Finman Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when a Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Plans and structures the response; it does not run the new analysis (finman-identification / finman-robustness) or the resubmission preflight (finman-submission).

Its SKILL.md is about 1.9k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Research & Science, covering Peer review. The repository describes itself as: Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的… The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • A Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R
  • Conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted

Example prompts

  • “/finman-rebuttal”

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Opening summary — thank the editor and referees; state the 3–5 substantive changes that define the revision, leading with the credibility…
  2. Point-by-point — quote each comment, then respond with what you did, where in the paper (section/table/page), and the result. One…
  3. Tone — gracious, concrete, non-defensive. Concede valid points fully; where you disagree, argue with evidence, not assertion.
  4. Triage discipline — every comment gets one of: done (changed + located), partially done (with reason), or respectfully declined (with an…
  5. Highlight the decisive evidence — if a referee doubted the design, quote the new heterogeneity-robust estimate / sensitivity bound /…

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 932eb23. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Finman Rebuttal loads about 1.9k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 85 tokens; SKILL.md has 945 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~85
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.9k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills at commit 932eb23, republished under its MIT licence (© brycewang-stanford). 945 words, ~1,895 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/finman-rebuttal/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
finman-rebuttal
description
Use when a Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Plans and structures the response; it does not run the new analysis (finman-identification / finman-robustness) or the resubmission preflight (finman-submission).

Rebuttal & Response Letter (finman-rebuttal)

When to trigger

  • An FM R&R or conditional acceptance decision letter has arrived
  • You need to triage referee comments into must-do / argue / defer
  • You are drafting the response-to-referees document and the revision plan
  • A reject-with-encouragement note needs a strategy before any re-engagement

How to read an FM decision

The editor's letter is the priority signal: it tells you which referee concerns are binding and which are optional. Given FM's criteria, the binding asks usually concern credibility (identification/inference) and whether the contribution is interesting and general enough, rather than robustness volume — FM under-weights trivial robustness, so an R&R rarely turns on "run ten more checks." Address the editor's stated priorities first and in full; treat the referee reports as the menu the editor has already filtered. Because FM values papers "people actually read," a revision that also sharpens the framing and the so-what — not just the econometrics — reads as responsive to the journal's taste. A revision is judged on whether the binding concerns are genuinely resolved and the paper is now more interesting, not on the number of new tables.

Response-letter structure

  1. Opening summary — thank the editor and referees; state the 3–5 substantive changes that define the revision, leading with the credibility and framing changes the editor flagged.
  2. Point-by-point — quote each comment, then respond with what you did, where in the paper (section/table/page), and the result. One consistent format per point.
  3. Tone — gracious, concrete, non-defensive. Concede valid points fully; where you disagree, argue with evidence, not assertion.
  4. Triage discipline — every comment gets one of: done (changed + located), partially done (with reason), or respectfully declined (with an evidence-based argument). No comment is silently dropped.
  5. Highlight the decisive evidence — if a referee doubted the design, quote the new heterogeneity-robust estimate / sensitivity bound / falsification result with its SE and say where it now lives.

Triage table

Referee askDefault response
Core identification/inference doubt (binding per editor)do it in full; show the new estimate + SE; update the paper
"Not interesting / too narrow" (binding per editor)sharpen the general-interest framing and the so-what; do not just add tables
"Belongs in a specialist journal"strengthen the substitution answer in the intro
Trivial robustness requestrun it if cheap, but lead with stability of the point estimate; resist a robustness wall FM discounts
Additional outcome / subsamplerun with appropriate inference, or argue why it is out of scope
Exposition / framingrevise; cheap, builds goodwill, and serves FM's readability brand
Out-of-scope new paperrespectfully decline with a one-line reason

Checklist

  • The editor's stated priorities are identified and addressed first, in full
  • Every referee comment is answered: done / partial / declined — none ignored
  • Each "done" response cites the exact section/table/page and the new result
  • Decisive credibility evidence is quoted with numbers and SEs
  • The framing/so-what is sharpened where "not interesting enough" was raised
  • Tone is gracious and concrete; disagreements are argued with evidence
  • Internet appendix and any data/code are updated to match the revised exhibits

Anti-patterns

  • Answering the referees but ignoring the editor's prioritization
  • Responding to "this isn't interesting" with more robustness tables instead of better framing
  • Defensive or dismissive tone; arguing by assertion rather than new evidence
  • Claiming a change without saying where in the paper it landed
  • Adding a wall of new tables that dodges the actual credibility concern
  • Letting the internet appendix or data/code drift out of sync with the revision
Show full SKILL.md (382 more words)Show less

The FM-specific revision instinct

Two reflexes serve an FM revision better than the generic "do everything the referees asked":

  • When a referee says "not interesting," resist the table reflex. The fix is almost always framing — a sharper general-interest hook, a clearer so-what, a magnitude in managerial units — not more econometrics. Adding tables to answer an interest objection reads as not understanding the journal.
  • Lead the response letter with the contribution, restated. Open by reminding the editor what the paper shows and why it matters, then walk the binding concerns. Editors handling a fast-turnaround journal appreciate a letter that re-establishes the value before diving into point-by-point detail.
  • Keep the revision proportionate. FM under-weights trivial robustness, so a revision that triples the table count to look responsive can backfire; a tight revision that resolves the binding concerns and improves readability fits the journal's taste.

Worked vignette (illustrative)

The editor's letter says the staggered-DID estimate needs a modern estimator and the paper "doesn't yet feel general-interest." A weak response argues TWFE "should be fine" and adds five robustness tables. The FM response: re-estimate with Sun–Abraham, report the new ATT of 3.1pp (s.e. 0.9 vs. 3.6pp under TWFE), add the event-study leads, and — addressing the second binding concern — rewrite the abstract and intro around the general managerial implication and the debate the finding furthers. The letter quotes the new number, cites the exact figure, and shows the framing change. Both binding concerns are resolved; no robustness wall is built.

Handling a reject-with-encouragement

FM's explanatory feedback sometimes amounts to a reject that signals the paper could return in different form. Read it carefully:

  • Distinguish fit from execution. If the note says the contribution is not general-interest enough, the issue is fit — reframe or re-target rather than re-running analysis. If it flags credibility, the issue is execution — fix and consider resubmission only if the editor invited it.
  • Do not resubmit a cosmetically changed paper. A second submission that ignores the first round's substance burns a fee and goodwill; FM editors remember.
  • Use the feedback to choose the next venue honestly — sometimes the right move is a specialist sibling where the contribution lands better.
  • Quote the editor's own language back if you do resubmit on invitation, to show the binding concerns were taken seriously rather than reinterpreted.

Output format

【Decision type】R&R / conditional accept / reject-with-encouragement
【Editor priorities】[binding asks, in order]
【Triage】done: [...] | partial: [...] | declined (with reason): [...]
【Decisive evidence】new credibility result + number(SE) + location
【Framing fix】so-what / general-interest sharpened where flagged? [Y/N]
【Tone check】gracious, concrete, evidence-based? [Y/N]
【Package sync】internet appendix + data/code updated? [Y/N]
【Next step】finman-submission (resubmit) → re-enter finman-workflow if further rounds

© brycewang-stanford, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in Financial-Management-Skills/skills/finman-rebuttal of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23

Compare with similar skills

Finman Rebuttal next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Finman Rebuttal compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Finman Rebuttal this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.2k—~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Peer Reviewspacering-net/codeg3.9k17 repos~5.9kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Scholar Evaluationspacering-net/codeg3.9k11 repos~3.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~16kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Academic Paper ReviewerImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~11kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer2.4k2 repos~3.1kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT

Similar skills

  • Peer Review

    spacering-net/codeg

    Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 17 repos~5.9k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes

  • Scholar Evaluation

    spacering-net/codeg

    Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and…

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 11 repos~3.2k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Academic Paper Writing Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Runs a 12-agent pipeline that plans, drafts, cites, reviews and formats academic papers, with modes for revision, rebuttals, abstracts and citation checks.

    51k GitHub stars~16k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Academic Paper Reviewer

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Simulates a journal peer review of a manuscript with a five-seat reviewer panel, an editorial synthesizer and several review modes.

    51k GitHub stars~11k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Peer Review

    K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer

    Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.

    2.4k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.1k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes

  • Academic Research Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Orchestrates a ten-stage academic workflow from research to finished manuscript, including integrity checks, two rounds of peer review and revision.

    51k GitHub stars~15k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

More from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

All 2,387 skills in this repo

  • Aaag Data Analysis

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when running and reporting the analysis for an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial statistics and modeling, remote-sensing accuracy, or…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Literature Positioning

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when positioning an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript in the literature — engaging geographic scholarship across the relevant area and the…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Rebuttal

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when responding to an Annals of the American Association of Geographers decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the subject editor and…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Research Design

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when defending the research design of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial/quantitative analysis and GIScience, remote-sensing and…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Review Process

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how the Annals of the American Association of Geographers evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review routed through a subject editor by…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Submission

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Annals of the American Association of Geographers via ScholarOne Manuscripts — area/article-type selection…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Finman Rebuttal

What does Finman Rebuttal do?

A skill your agent uses when a Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Finman Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when a Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted.

When should I use Finman Rebuttal?

Finman Rebuttal fits situations like: A Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R; conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted.

How do I install Finman Rebuttal in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill finman-rebuttal -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (Financial-Management-Skills/skills/finman-rebuttal in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/finman-rebuttal in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Finman Rebuttal in Codex?

Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill finman-rebuttal -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (Financial-Management-Skills/skills/finman-rebuttal in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/finman-rebuttal in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Finman Rebuttal in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill finman-rebuttal -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/finman-rebuttal, .gemini/skills/finman-rebuttal, .github/skills/finman-rebuttal and .opencode/skills/finman-rebuttal in your project.

What does Finman Rebuttal need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Finman Rebuttal is instructions for the agent only.

Does Finman Rebuttal access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Finman Rebuttal safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Finman Rebuttal use?

Finman Rebuttal is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Finman Rebuttal use?

About 1.9k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 7.6k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Finman Rebuttal?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Finman Rebuttal: Peer Review (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Scholar Evaluation (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Academic Paper Writing Pipeline (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars) and Academic Paper Reviewer (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Finman Rebuttal?

brycewang-stanford (a GitHub user) maintains it in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, which has 1,231 GitHub stars. The repository holds 2,387 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 27, 2026.

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.