A skill your agent uses when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit.

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Pubar Rebuttal

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

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills pubar-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/Public-Administration-Review-Skills/skills/pubar-rebuttal .claude/skills/pubar-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
pubar-rebuttal
GitHub stars
1.2k
Token cost
~1.3k tokens
SKILL.md length
587 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
2,387
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit.

  • Works in 6 steps: Read the editor's letter as the rubric.… → One point-by-point response, every… → Concede or rebut explicitly, with… → …
  • Writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit
  • SKILL.md covers When to trigger, Strategy, Response-letter format and Triage table for a PAR R&R, plus 4 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Pubar Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit. PAR weighs both scholarly rigor and the practitioner "so-what," so the response must convert each reviewer, satisfy the handling editor, and keep the Evidence for Practice intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Its SKILL.md is about 1.3k 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

  • Writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit
  • Tasks that involve Peer review

Example prompts

  • “so-what,”
  • “/pubar-rebuttal”

Workflow steps

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

  1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The handling editor signals which points are decisive
  2. One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never
  3. Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the
  4. Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a
  5. Protect the contribution AND the practice bridge. Add robustness and clarifications; resist
  6. Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-blind), and **update the

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

Pubar Rebuttal loads about 1.3k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 88 tokens; SKILL.md has 587 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~88
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.3k

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). 587 words, ~1,312 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/pubar-rebuttal/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
pubar-rebuttal
description
Use when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit. PAR weighs both scholarly rigor and the practitioner "so-what," so the response must convert each reviewer, satisfy the handling editor, and keep the Evidence for Practice intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

R&R Rebuttal (pubar-rebuttal)

A PAR major or minor revision is a real opening, but resubmission must satisfy expert public-management reviewers and the handling editor — while protecting the contribution and the Evidence for Practice that make the paper PAR-shaped. The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent.

When to trigger

  • An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
  • Reviewers disagree with each other and you must reconcile their demands
  • A reviewer requests analyses that would change the paper's claims or practitioner takeaways
  • Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

Strategy

  1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The handling editor signals which points are decisive and adjudicates disagreements among reviewers. Solve those first.
  2. One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
  3. Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the new text/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, or evidence). Editors respect a well-argued disagreement more than a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
  4. Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
  5. Protect the contribution AND the practice bridge. Add robustness and clarifications; resist changes that dilute either the scholarly contribution or the honest Evidence for Practice that earned the R&R. If a requested analysis weakens a practitioner takeaway, re-scope it honestly rather than over-claim.
  6. Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-blind), and update the transparency materials so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see pubar-transparency-and-data).

Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.

Show full SKILL.md (266 more words)Show less

Triage table for a PAR R&R

Comment signalWho owns the callDefault move in the response
Editor flags it as decisiveeditorsolve first, headline it in the cover note
Two reviewers want opposite thingseditorpick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly
Reviewer asks for an analysis that would change the claimauthor + editorrun it, then defend or re-scope honestly
"The practitioner takeaway is over-claimed"authortie each Evidence-for-Practice point to a confirmatory estimate
"This reads like JPART/JPAM, not PAR"authorre-anchor to public-management practice and the so-what

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A hypothetical R&R draws three reviews. The editor's letter names two decisive points (identification and the strength of the Evidence for Practice). R1 wants the qualitative strand cut; R3 wants it expanded. The disciplined letter opens with a three-sentence summary to the editor, addresses identification and the practitioner takeaways first with new text/table locations, then reconciles R1/R3 by keeping a compact mixed-methods integration in the main text and moving extended interview material to the supplement — stating the tradeoff explicitly. Of 27 total comments, 27 receive a quoted response; 19 are conceded with a change location, 8 are rebutted with a reason. (Counts illustrative.)

Anti-patterns

  • Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
  • Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic or guts the Evidence for Practice
  • Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
  • "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
  • Letting the revised manuscript or new exhibits drift out of sync with the deposited materials

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution + Evidence for Practice protected】[Y/N]
【Anonymity + transparency materials updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via the PAR portal

Supplementary resources

© 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 Public-Administration-Review-Skills/skills/pubar-rebuttal of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23

Compare with similar skills

Pubar 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.

Pubar Rebuttal compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Pubar Rebuttal this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.2k—~1.3kAutomated 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

Questions about Pubar Rebuttal

What does Pubar Rebuttal do?

A skill your agent uses when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit. Pubar Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit.

When should I use Pubar Rebuttal?

Pubar Rebuttal fits situations like: writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit; tasks that involve Peer review.

How do I install Pubar Rebuttal in Claude Code?

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

How do I install Pubar Rebuttal in Codex?

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

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

What does Pubar Rebuttal need to run?

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

Does Pubar 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 Pubar 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 Pubar Rebuttal use?

Pubar 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 Pubar Rebuttal use?

About 1.3k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 5.2k 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 Pubar Rebuttal?

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