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

Wber Rebuttal

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

A skill your agent uses when a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs.

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Wber Rebuttal

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

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills wber-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/World-Bank-Economic-Review-Skills/skills/wber-rebuttal .claude/skills/wber-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
wber-rebuttal
GitHub stars
1.2k
Token cost
~1.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
930 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 World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs.

  • Works in 4 steps: Do the essential analysis first — the… → Lock the revised result, then rebuild… → Rewrite the framing — intro,… → …
  • A The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R
  • SKILL.md covers When to trigger, Read the letter through the…, Triage every point and Writing the response letter, plus 6 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Wber Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs. referee asks, sequencing new analysis, and writing point-by-point replies for the identification and policy referee archetypes. Plans the revision; it does not run the new analysis.

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

  • A The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R
  • Reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs

Example prompts

  • “/wber-rebuttal”

Workflow steps

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

  1. Do the essential analysis first — the design re-estimation or new evidence the editor flagged as binding. If it changes the headline…
  2. Lock the revised result, then rebuild exhibits and the data/code package against it.
  3. Rewrite the framing — intro, contribution, external-validity — to match the new result.
  4. Draft the response letter last, once you can report concrete numbers and locations.

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

Wber Rebuttal loads about 1.8k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 93 tokens; SKILL.md has 930 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~93
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). 930 words, ~1,842 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/wber-rebuttal/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
wber-rebuttal
description
Use when a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs. referee asks, sequencing new analysis, and writing point-by-point replies for the identification and policy referee archetypes. Plans the revision; it does not run the new analysis.

Rebuttal Strategy (wber-rebuttal)

When to trigger

  • A WBER decision letter arrived (R&R, major/minor revision, or reject-with-encouragement)
  • You need to triage which referee asks are deal-breakers vs. optional
  • The two referees disagree, or one is identification-focused and the other policy-focused
  • You are deciding what new analysis is worth running before resubmitting
  • You need to draft the point-by-point response letter

Read the letter through the WBER lens

WBER revisions almost always hit the journal's two-part bar: the identification referee wants the design hardened; the policy referee wants relevance, external validity, and cost. The editor's letter is the binding document — the editor's synthesis outranks any single referee, and the editor will signal which concerns are essential. Read the editor's framing first, then map each referee point to a referee archetype so your tone and evidence fit the reader. Single-anonymized review means the referees know who you are; engage them as informed colleagues, not adversaries.

Triage every point

TierWhat it isHow to handle
Deal-breakerThe editor or a referee flags it as essential (e.g., "the design is not credible as is")Do the work fully; lead the response with it; show the new result in the paper
SubstantiveA real concern short of fatal (a robustness gap, an external-validity question)Address with new analysis or a clear argument; revise the text
Framing"Reads like a project report," "clarify the contribution"Reframe and rewrite; usually cheap, high-return
Optional / misreadA referee misunderstood, or asks for out-of-scope workClarify respectfully; push back with evidence, do not capitulate to scope creep

Resolve referee disagreements by appealing to the editor's synthesis and to evidence — if Referee 1 wants a structural model and Referee 2 wants none, state which serves the paper's question and why, and let the editor's priorities adjudicate.

Writing the response letter

  • Open with a short summary of the main changes and the headline that survived.
  • Point-by-point, quote each comment, then give: what you did, where in the revised paper, and the result.
  • Show numbers, not promises. "We re-estimated with Callaway–Sant'Anna; the ATT is 4.1pp (s.e. 1.0), up from 3.8pp" beats "we addressed this."
  • Match tone to archetype. For the identification referee, lead with the diagnostic and the robust estimate. For the policy referee, lead with external validity, scale-up, and cost.
  • Update the data/code package to match the revised exhibits — WBER's release is a condition of publication, so the deposit must track the final results.
  • Be honest about trade-offs. If a requested check weakens precision, report it and explain; do not hide it.
  • Respect the 40-page cap when adding material — move secondary additions to the supplementary appendix.

Sequencing the revision work

Order the work so the deal-breakers cannot sink the resubmission:

  1. Do the essential analysis first — the design re-estimation or new evidence the editor flagged as binding. If it changes the headline, everything downstream (exhibits, abstract, model) must follow.
  2. Lock the revised result, then rebuild exhibits and the data/code package against it.
  3. Rewrite the framing — intro, contribution, external-validity — to match the new result.
  4. Draft the response letter last, once you can report concrete numbers and locations.

Never write the response letter promising work you have not yet done; WBER editors and the same referees will re-read, and an unfulfilled promise reads worse than an honest "this check weakened precision, and here is why we still believe the result."

Show full SKILL.md (372 more words)Show less

Checklist

  • Editor's letter read first; essential concerns identified and led with
  • Every referee point triaged (deal-breaker / substantive / framing / optional) and answered
  • Each response quotes the comment, states the change, the location, and the new number
  • Identification asks answered with diagnostics + robust estimates
  • Policy asks answered with external validity / scale-up / cost
  • Referee disagreements resolved by appeal to the editor's synthesis + evidence
  • Data/code package and DOI-linked DAS updated to the revised results
  • Added material respects the 40-page cap; secondary content in the appendix

Anti-patterns

  • Responding to referees before parsing the editor's synthesis (the editor decides)
  • "We thank the referee and have addressed this" with no specific change or number
  • Capitulating to scope creep that would dilute the paper's question
  • Answering the identification referee with policy prose, or vice versa
  • Letting the revised paper drift over 40 pages with reactive additions
  • Leaving the replication package stale relative to the new exhibits
  • Treating single-anonymized referees as anonymous adversaries rather than informed colleagues

Tone and the single-anonymized referee

WBER's single-anonymized review means the referees know who you are, but you do not know them — so write as if to a respected colleague, never as if scoring points. Thank substantive criticism genuinely, concede what is right, and push back only with evidence and a clear reason. When you disagree, frame it as "we considered this and here is why the alternative would not serve the question," not as a dismissal. Editors weigh the tone of a response: a defensive or evasive letter can sink a revision that the analysis would otherwise have saved.

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A reject-with-encouragement letter says the editor likes the question but Referee 1 calls the TWFE design biased and Referee 2 says the result "won't generalize beyond three districts." Triage: both are deal-breakers. The team re-estimates with a heterogeneity-robust estimator (ATT now 4.1pp, s.e. 1.0, with flat pre-trend leads) and adds an external-validity section comparing the three districts to the national distribution plus a fiscal-cost-at-scale figure. The response letter leads with the editor's two priorities, quotes each referee, shows the new numbers and their locations, and notes the openICPSR-style package and DOI-linked DAS now match the revised tables. The paper stays at 39 pages by moving older specifications to the appendix.

Output format

text
【Decision】R&R / major / minor / reject-with-encouragement
【Editor's essential concerns】led-with items
【Triage】deal-breakers / substantive / framing / optional
【Identification responses】diagnostic + robust estimate + location
【Policy responses】external validity / scale-up / cost + location
【Disagreement resolution】how editor synthesis adjudicates
【Package updated】data/code + DOI DAS match revised exhibits? [Y/N]
【Page cap】revision ≤40 pages? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne

© 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 World-Bank-Economic-Review-Skills/skills/wber-rebuttal of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23

Compare with similar skills

Wber 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.

Wber Rebuttal compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Wber 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 Wber Rebuttal

What does Wber Rebuttal do?

A skill your agent uses when a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs. Wber Rebuttal is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs.

When should I use Wber Rebuttal?

Wber Rebuttal fits situations like: A The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R; reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs.

How do I install Wber Rebuttal in Claude Code?

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

How do I install Wber Rebuttal in Codex?

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

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

What does Wber Rebuttal need to run?

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

Does Wber 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 Wber 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 Wber Rebuttal use?

Wber 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 Wber Rebuttal use?

About 1.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 7.4k 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 Wber Rebuttal?

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