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

Imfer Rebuttal

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

A skill your agent uses when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel.

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Imfer Rebuttal

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

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills imfer-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/IMF-Economic-Review-Skills/skills/imfer-rebuttal .claude/skills/imfer-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
imfer-rebuttal
GitHub stars
1.2k
Token cost
~1.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
941 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
2,387
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel.

  • Works in 6 steps: Lead with a summary of changes keyed to… → Quote each comment, then answer with… → Concede gracefully and push back… → …
  • An IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R
  • SKILL.md covers When to trigger, How to read an IMFER decision…, Rebuttal craft and Checklist, plus 4 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Imfer Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel. Plans and drafts the response; it returns to imfer-submission for the resubmission preflight and does not re-run the original identification (imfer-identification).

Its SKILL.md is about 1.8k 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

  • An IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R
  • Decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel

Example prompts

  • “/imfer-rebuttal”

Workflow steps

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

  1. Lead with a summary of changes keyed to the editor's priorities, then a point-by-point reply.
  2. Quote each comment, then answer with what changed, where (section/table/page), and the result — show the number, do not just assert.
  3. Concede gracefully and push back precisely. Where a referee is wrong, disagree with evidence and courtesy; do not stonewall the policy…
  4. Satisfy both tracks. Close the academic identification asks and the policy-relevance asks; a revision that fixes one and ignores the other…
  5. Bound, do not inflate, the policy claim. Re-scoping an overreached implication is usually safer than defending it.
  6. Show robustness moved little. The persuasive object is that new checks leave the headline stable.

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

Imfer Rebuttal loads about 1.8k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 83 tokens; SKILL.md has 941 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~83
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.8k

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). 941 words, ~1,831 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/imfer-rebuttal/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
imfer-rebuttal
description
Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel. Plans and drafts the response; it returns to imfer-submission for the resubmission preflight and does not re-run the original identification (imfer-identification).

Rebuttal Strategy (imfer-rebuttal)

When to trigger

  • An IMFER R&R (major or minor) arrived and you must turn referee reports into a revision plan
  • The editor's letter prioritizes some points over others and you must read the signal
  • A referee asks for a new identification check, a country-composition test, or a stronger policy framing
  • Two referees disagree — one academic-leaning, one policy-leaning — and you must satisfy both
  • You need to decide what to concede, what to push back on, and what to defer
  • A referee requests a major redesign and you must decide whether to comply, push back, or withdraw

How to read an IMFER decision letter

IMFER R&Rs usually carry the dual signature of the pool: an academic referee pressing on identification and frontier novelty, and a reader pressing on policy relevance and program realism. Start from the editor's letter — it ranks the points and signals which are deal-breakers. The classic IMFER revision arc is: shore up the cross-country design, add the composition/common-shock checks the referees expect, and sharpen (or appropriately bound) the policy implication without overreaching. Treat the academic and policy concerns as two tracks that must both be closed.

Referee askResponse move
"Re-do with a heterogeneity-robust estimator"re-estimate; show the headline barely moves; report the event-study leads
"Show it is not driven by a few countries"add leave-one-country-out / drop-dominant to the main paper, not just the appendix
"This is the global financial cycle"add the global-cycle / US-shock control; show the result survives
"Policy is endogenous to the crisis"add the instrument / narrative-timing defense; bound the causal reading
"The policy implication is overreached"re-scope the implication to exactly what the design supports
"Inference is too narrow"switch to Driscoll–Kraay / wild-cluster; report the new CIs
Two referees disagreelet the editor's ranking arbitrate; address both, flag the tension transparently
"Make it reproducible"finalize the package with restricted-data access instructions
"Extend to more countries / a longer sample"extend if feasible and report; if data-constrained, say so and bound external validity
Reading the decision verdict

IMFER decisions, like most economics journals, carry a verdict the letter's tone encodes: a major R&R invites real engagement and usually signals the editor wants the paper if the design and policy claim can be shored up; a minor R&R means the contribution is accepted and the asks are executable; a reject-and-resubmit (rarer) means a fundamental redesign before it can re-enter. Calibrate effort to the verdict — do not under-respond to a major R&R by treating it as cosmetic, and do not over-engineer a minor R&R into a new paper the editor did not ask for. The editor's framing of the contribution, not the referee word count, is the signal.

Rebuttal craft

  1. Lead with a summary of changes keyed to the editor's priorities, then a point-by-point reply.
  2. Quote each comment, then answer with what changed, where (section/table/page), and the result — show the number, do not just assert.
  3. Concede gracefully and push back precisely. Where a referee is wrong, disagree with evidence and courtesy; do not stonewall the policy referee on relevance.
  4. Satisfy both tracks. Close the academic identification asks and the policy-relevance asks; a revision that fixes one and ignores the other stalls.
  5. Bound, do not inflate, the policy claim. Re-scoping an overreached implication is usually safer than defending it.
  6. Show robustness moved little. The persuasive object is that new checks leave the headline stable.
Show full SKILL.md (378 more words)Show less

Checklist

  • Effort calibrated to the verdict (major vs. minor R&R vs. reject-and-resubmit)
  • Summary-of-changes table keyed to the editor's ranked priorities
  • Every referee point quoted and answered with section/table reference and the result
  • New identification / composition / common-shock checks run and reported
  • Policy implication re-scoped or sharpened to what the evidence supports
  • Both the academic and the policy referee's concerns are closed
  • Disagreements handled with evidence, not stonewalling; tensions flagged for the editor
  • A polite, point-by-point tone maintained even where the referee is wrong
  • Resubmission re-runs the double-blind preflight (imfer-submission)

Anti-patterns

  • A response letter that argues instead of revising — refusing the obvious requested checks
  • Closing the academic asks while ignoring the policy referee (or vice versa)
  • Re-defending an overreached policy claim instead of bounding it
  • Asserting "we added robustness" without showing the new numbers
  • Ignoring the editor's signaled priorities and treating all comments as equal
  • Forgetting to re-anonymize the revised main file for the next double-blind round
  • Letting two conflicting referees pull the paper apart instead of using the editor's ranking to arbitrate
  • A response document so long the editor cannot find what changed — lead with the changes table
  • Silently dropping a result a referee questioned instead of addressing the concern openly

Worked vignette (illustrative)

The R&R: Referee 1 (academic) wants Callaway–Sant'Anna and a leave-one-country-out; Referee 2 (policy) thinks the CFM welfare claim is overreached; the editor flags identification as the deal-breaker. The response leads with a changes table keyed to that ranking: the headline moves from −0.82 to −0.79 under the new estimator (shown), leave-one-country-out stays in [−0.9, −0.7] (new appendix table referenced), and the welfare claim is re-scoped from "CFMs are optimal" to "CFMs reduce the outflow by roughly half in the regime we study, with the optimal tax bounded at 1–3%." Both referees' tracks close; the editor's priority is addressed first.

Referee pushback mapped to the rebuttal move

  • "You did not actually run the requested estimator." → Run it, report the new headline, and show it barely moved — assertion is not enough.
  • "The policy claim is still too strong." → Re-scope explicitly to the regime and magnitude the design supports; do not re-defend the original.
  • "The two referees contradict each other." → Quote the editor's ranking, address both, and flag the tension transparently for the editor to adjudicate.

Output format

text
【Journal】IMF Economic Review
【Skill】imfer-rebuttal
【Editor priorities】ranked deal-breakers: ___
【Point-by-point】[comment → change → location → result] for each
【New analyses】estimator / composition / common-shock checks run: ___
【Policy claim】re-scoped / sharpened to the evidence: ___
【Both tracks closed】academic ___ | policy ___
【Next step】imfer-submission (re-run double-blind preflight for resubmission)

© 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 IMF-Economic-Review-Skills/skills/imfer-rebuttal of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23

Compare with similar skills

Imfer 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.

Imfer Rebuttal compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Imfer Rebuttal this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.2k—~1.8kAutomated 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 Imfer Rebuttal

What does Imfer Rebuttal do?

A skill your agent uses when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel. Imfer Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel.

When should I use Imfer Rebuttal?

Imfer Rebuttal fits situations like: an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R; decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel.

How do I install Imfer Rebuttal in Claude Code?

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

How do I install Imfer Rebuttal in Codex?

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

Can I use Imfer 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 imfer-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/imfer-rebuttal, .gemini/skills/imfer-rebuttal, .github/skills/imfer-rebuttal and .opencode/skills/imfer-rebuttal in your project.

What does Imfer Rebuttal need to run?

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

Does Imfer 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 Imfer 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 Imfer Rebuttal use?

Imfer 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 Imfer Rebuttal use?

About 1.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 7.3k 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 Imfer Rebuttal?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Imfer 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 Imfer 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.