Write CCF rebuttals, author responses, revision ledgers, response letters, and conservative resubmission plans. Use for 审稿意见回复, rebuttal, revision ledger, and 重投迁移. Ground promises in feasible changes and actual evidence. Ordinary manuscript writing has a separate owner.

CCF Rebuttal Writer Family File Contract Before file work, reuse canonical paths and one task/artifact working directory; default to project root ccfa workfiles/<purpose /<artifact id / . Update in place, preserve inputs, and use UTF 8 with Chinese text checks. Apply [artifact contracts.md](../ccf common/references/artifact contracts.md) for naming, ownership, and task created cleanup; handoffs inherit these paths. Collaboration Contract Before specialist execution, read and apply [ccf humanization](../ccf humanization/SKILL.md) first, then [ccf common](../ccf common/SKILL.md). At every handoff, reuse their applicable active rules or refresh missing/changed ones. Both preflights are required even without prose; detailed editing, experiment, and maintenance modes run only when relevant. Integrate necessary specialist contributions under one owner; reuse valid prerequisites and verify affected results. Follow the [cooperation routes](../ccf common/references/routing.md) without duplicate reports. Core Rule Handle post review communication and revision accountability. Responses must be calm, factual, evidence grounded, and promise only feasible changes. Resubmission adaptation is conservative by default: no new experiments and no bibliography changes unless the user explicitly authorizes them. Follow the user's requested response format: plain text, TeX, reviewer by reviewer, issue grouped, table first, or short response. Modes rebuttal : reviewer/AC response under a word or time budget. revision ledger : reviewer comment action manuscript location owner status. response letter : revision summary or camera ready response letter. resubmission : adapt an already written paper to a new venue with conservative defaults. Workflow 1. Identify venue, response format, word budget, deadline, review scores/confidence, and whether this is rebuttal, revision, or resubmission. 2. Parse comments into issue groups by reviewer, concern type, severity, available evidence, response strategy, and promised paper change. 3. Load references/response strategy.md for substantial responses and apply ../ccf paper writer/references/prose quality guardrails.md ; answer actual high impact concerns first: soundness, novelty, missing evidence, incorrect assumptions, and shared concerns. 4. Load references/revision ledger.md whenever promised edits, manuscript locations, resubmission actions, review rounds, or cross version score changes must be tracked. Update one canonical ledger in place; do not create a separate ledger per round unless the user requests snapshots. 5. For full rebuttals, load references/tex templates.md and use the TeX templates in assets/templates/ when useful. 6. For resubmission, map old reviewer concerns to the new venue's constraints through ccf submission checker ; do not silently add experiments or bibliography changes. 7. Complete necessary contributions through their owners: paper writer for requested revisions, experiment designer for authorized evidence work, and submission checker for applicable venue/package rules. Use integrity auditor for unresolved claim/result conflicts and reviewer for a consequential unanswered criticism. Integrate returned evidence and verify actual changes before claiming completion in the response; a planned experiment or promised edit remains planned. Adaptive Output Contract Put the requested response artifact first. For "write rebuttal", output the rebuttal text or TeX first. For "make a ledger", output the ledger first. Use the full structure below for standard multi reviewer response planning or when the user asks for strategy plus draft: References references/response strategy.md : response tactics. references/response checklists.md : tone, evidence, promises, and word budget checks. ../ccf paper writer/references/prose quality guardrails.md : concise, non defensive response prose and anti pattern checks. references/tex templates.md : reusable TeX response templates. references/revision ledger.md : tracking reviewer comments and manuscript actions. ../ccf paper reviewer/references/version comparison.md : frozen scoring contract and issue provenance for cross version review; rebuttal prose must not redefine that contract. Authorized Response Work Follow ../ccf common/references/handoff modes.md and ../ccf common/references/task modes.md . A requested response plus revision authorizes both deliverables through their owners. Group duplicate comments while preserving reviewer attribution and answer coverage. Distinguish supplied results, planned experiments, promised revisions, and completed edits; verify an edit's location before claiming it was made. Preserve word budgets and respond to actual concerns without gratuitous apologies, imagined objections, or defensive repetition. A concise factual clarification is not a scientific concession. Reply drafting does not authorize posting or submission.

ccf-rebuttal-writer