kim-ccf-research-rebuttallisted

# CCF Rebuttal Writer ## 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` and `../kim-ccf-research-shared/references/prose-guardrails.md (TODO)`; answer 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 ca