Peer Review
spacering-net/codeg
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.
A skill your agent uses when a The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted.
Install Jle Rebuttal
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills jle-rebuttal --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal .claude/skills/jle-rebuttal && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.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/
Install the "jle-rebuttal" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal into .claude/skills/jle-rebuttal/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "jle-rebuttal", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttalType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills jle-rebuttal --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal .agents/skills/jle-rebuttal && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "jle-rebuttal" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal into .agents/skills/jle-rebuttal/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "jle-rebuttal", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills jle-rebuttal --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal .cursor/skills/jle-rebuttal && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "jle-rebuttal" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal into .cursor/skills/jle-rebuttal/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "jle-rebuttal", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git --path Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills jle-rebuttal --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal .gemini/skills/jle-rebuttal && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "jle-rebuttal" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal into .gemini/skills/jle-rebuttal/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "jle-rebuttal", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills jle-rebuttalInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal .github/skills/jle-rebuttal && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "jle-rebuttal" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal into .github/skills/jle-rebuttal/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "jle-rebuttal", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills jle-rebuttal --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal .opencode/skills/jle-rebuttal && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "jle-rebuttal" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal into .opencode/skills/jle-rebuttal/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "jle-rebuttal", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
Facts
- Skill name
jle-rebuttal- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~2k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 972 words
- Files
- 1
- Skills in repo
- 2,387
- Repo updated
- First seen
- Licence
- MIT
At a glance
A skill your agent uses when a The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) 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… → Point-by-point — quote each comment,… → Tone — gracious, concrete,… → …
- A The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) decision letter arrives (R&R
- SKILL.md covers When to trigger, How to read a JLE 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
Jle Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when a The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) 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 (jle-identification / jle-robustness) or the submission preflight (jle-submission).
Its SKILL.md is about 2k 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 The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) decision letter arrives (R&R
- Conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted
Example prompts
- “/jle-rebuttal”
Workflow steps
5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.
- Opening summary — thank the editor/referees; state the 3–5 substantive changes that define the revision (lead with the institutional and…
- Point-by-point — quote each comment, then respond with what you did, where in the paper (section/table/page), and the result. Use a…
- Tone — gracious, concrete, non-defensive. Concede valid points fully; where you disagree, argue with evidence, not assertion.
- Triage discipline — every comment gets one of: done (changed + located), partially done (with reason), or respectfully declined (with an…
- Highlight the decisive evidence — if a referee doubted the legal identification, show the new heterogeneity-robust estimate / honest-DID…
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
Jle Rebuttal loads about 2k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 85 tokens; SKILL.md has 972 words of instructions outside code blocks.
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). 972 words, ~1,980 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/jle-rebuttal/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- jle-rebuttal
- description
- Use when a The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) 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 (jle-identification / jle-robustness) or the submission preflight (jle-submission).
Rebuttal & Response Letter (jle-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A JLE 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 revision plan
- A reject-and-resubmit invitation needs a strategy before re-engaging
How to read a JLE decision
The handling editor's letter is the priority signal: it tells you which referee concerns are binding and which are optional. At JLE the binding asks are almost always about (1) whether the legal institution is described correctly and the rule binds as claimed, and (2) the credibility of the legal identification (the staggered-timing estimator, the parallel-trends story, the random-assignment defense), before exposition. Because review is single-blind, the editor and referees know who you are — a gracious, evidence-led, non-defensive tone is worth more than at a blinded journal, and self-citation should stay honest. Address the editor's stated priorities first and in full; the revision is judged on whether the identification and institutional concerns are genuinely resolved, not on the volume of new tables.
Response-letter structure
- Opening summary — thank the editor/referees; state the 3–5 substantive changes that define the revision (lead with the institutional and identification changes).
- Point-by-point — quote each comment, then respond with what you did, where in the paper (section/table/page), and the result. Use a consistent format per point.
- Tone — gracious, concrete, non-defensive. Concede valid points fully; where you disagree, argue with evidence, not assertion.
- 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 ignored.
- Highlight the decisive evidence — if a referee doubted the legal identification, show the new heterogeneity-robust estimate / honest-DID bound / placebo on an uncovered legal area explicitly, with the new number and its SE.
Triage table
| Referee ask | Default response |
|---|---|
| Institution misdescribed / rule didn't bind when claimed (binding per editor) | correct it fully; re-date or re-scope; show the corrected estimate |
| Core legal-identification doubt (binding) | do it in full; new heterogeneity-robust estimate + SE; update the paper |
| Robustness / inference (few states) | run it; report point-estimate stability; wild-cluster bootstrap |
| Cross-jurisdiction external validity / estimand | add a calibrated scope statement; do not overclaim |
| Additional outcome / jurisdiction | run with appropriate adjustment, or argue why out of scope |
| Mechanism (deterrence vs. incapacitation, price vs. quality) | add the channel-distinguishing test |
| Exposition / framing | revise; cheap, builds goodwill |
| Out-of-scope new paper | respectfully decline with a one-line reason |
Checklist
- Editor's stated priorities identified and addressed first, in full
- Institutional/legal-description concerns corrected and re-verified
- Every referee comment answered: done / partial / declined — none ignored
- Each "done" response cites the exact section/table/page and the new result
- Decisive identification/robustness evidence quoted with numbers and SEs
- Tone gracious and concrete (especially given single-blind); disagreements argued with evidence
- Replication package updated to match the revised exhibits (
jle-replication-package) - A short cover note to the editor summarizing how the binding concerns were resolved
Pacing a JLE revision
Law-and-economics revisions often hinge on one or two heavy lifts — re-coding the institution, re-estimating with a heterogeneity-robust estimator, or running the few-clusters inference — rather than many small ones. Plan the revision so the decisive new evidence is done first and the rest of the letter is built around it. Do not let cosmetic edits crowd out the binding identification work, and do not promise analysis you cannot deliver in the revision window; an honest "we did A and B in full; C we address with a bound and explain why a full treatment is infeasible" reads better than over-promising. Keep the editor's letter open beside the draft and check off each binding item explicitly.
Show full SKILL.md (377 more words)Show less
Worked vignette (illustrative)
Referee 2 says the staggered-DID estimate of a tort-reform effect is biased and the author misdated the reform to the statute's signing rather than its effective date; the editor flags both as binding. A weak response argues TWFE "should be fine." The JLE response: re-date treatment to each state's effective date, re-estimate with Callaway–Sant'Anna (new ATT −0.08, s.e. 0.03, vs. −0.10 under mis-dated TWFE), add event-study leads and a Bacon decomposition, and run an honest-DID bound. In the letter, quote the new number, cite the exact figure/table, and note the conclusion is unchanged but now correctly dated and robust. The editor sees both binding concerns resolved with evidence — and, since review is single-blind, the tone stays gracious and forthright.
Handling the institutional-correction ask (distinctive at JLE)
A class of JLE referee comment has no analog at a generic econ journal: the referee, who knows the legal institution, says you have the law wrong — the rule did not bind when you claim, you mis-coded an exemption, a controlling case changed the regime mid-sample, or your market definition is not the antitrust-relevant one. These are usually binding and must be handled with care:
- Concede precisely and re-verify the institution against primary legal sources (statute text, effective-date records, the docket), not secondary summaries.
- Re-run with the corrected coding and report whether the estimate moves; if the correction shrinks the effect, say so and bound the implication.
- Thank the referee for the institutional expertise — these comments improve the paper and a gracious concession reads well under single-blind.
- If the referee is mistaken about the law, document the correct institutional fact with a citation and explain courteously; do not simply assert your reading.
Anti-patterns
- Answering the referees but ignoring the editor's prioritization
- Conceding an institutional-correction point in words but never re-running with the corrected coding
- Defensive or dismissive tone — costlier under single-blind, where reviewers know the author
- Claiming a change without saying where in the paper it landed
- Adding a wall of new tables that dodges the actual institutional/identification concern
- Letting the replication package drift out of sync with the revised paper
- Over-promising analysis you cannot finish in the revision window instead of bounding it honestly
- Silently dropping a comment you found inconvenient
Output format
【Decision type】R&R / conditional accept / reject-and-resubmit
【Editor priorities】[binding asks, in order]
【Institution fix】description/dating corrected? [Y/N/NA]
【Triage】done: [...] | partial: [...] | declined (with reason): [...]
【Decisive evidence】new identification/robustness result + number(SE) + location
【Tone check】gracious, concrete, evidence-based? [Y/N]
【Package sync】replication updated to match revision? [Y/N]
【Next step】jle-submission (resubmit) → re-enter jle-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 Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Jle 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.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jle Rebuttal this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Peer Reviewspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 17 repos | ~5.9k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Scholar Evaluationspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 11 repos | ~3.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills | 51k | — | ~16k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Academic Paper ReviewerImbad0202/academic-research-skills | 51k | — | ~11k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer | 2.4k | 2 repos | ~3.1k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT |
Similar skills
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…
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.
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.
Peer Review
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.
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.
More from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
All 2,387 skills in this repoAaag 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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Related
Categories
Questions about Jle Rebuttal
What does Jle Rebuttal do?
A skill your agent uses when a The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Jle Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when a The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) 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 Jle Rebuttal?
Jle Rebuttal fits situations like: A The Journal of Law and Economics (JLE) decision letter arrives (R&R; conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted.
How do I install Jle Rebuttal in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/jle-rebuttal in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Jle Rebuttal in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jle-rebuttal -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (Journal-of-Law-and-Economics-Skills/skills/jle-rebuttal in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/jle-rebuttal in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Jle 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 jle-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/jle-rebuttal, .gemini/skills/jle-rebuttal, .github/skills/jle-rebuttal and .opencode/skills/jle-rebuttal in your project.
What does Jle Rebuttal need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Jle Rebuttal is instructions for the agent only.
Does Jle 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 Jle 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 Jle Rebuttal use?
Jle 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 Jle Rebuttal use?
About 2k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 7.9k 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 Jle Rebuttal?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Jle 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 Jle 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.