Use after a Games and Economic Behavior revise-and-resubmit to organize responses on theory novelty, equilibrium/proof details, experiments, simulations, Editor-in-Charge priorities, and Elsevier revision files.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill geb-rebuttal --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Geb Rebuttal?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-geb-rebuttal)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: geb-rebuttal
description: Use after a Games and Economic Behavior revise-and-resubmit to organize responses on theory novelty, equilibrium/proof details, experiments, simulations, Editor-in-Charge priorities, and Elsevier revision files.
---
# R&R Rebuttal (geb-rebuttal)
## When to trigger
- A GEB revision decision has arrived
- Referees question novelty, proof correctness, equilibrium selection, experiment design, or fit
- You need a response letter that respects the Editor-in-Charge process
## Triage categories
1. **Theory correctness**: missing proof step, equilibrium existence/uniqueness,
refinement, comparative statics, boundary case, or counterexample.
2. **Novelty and positioning**: the paper may be a corollary, special case, or
incremental extension of known game-theory results.
3. **Experimental / numerical evidence**: underpowered experiment, unclear
treatment, robustness, code, or simulation design.
4. **Exposition**: notation, game form, timing, payoff matrix, assumptions, or
abstract length.
5. **Fit**: contribution to game theory is not visible enough.
## Response strategy
- Start with the editor's synthesis, then handle referee comments in order.
- For proof comments, add the missing lemma/proof or narrow the theorem.
- For novelty comments, compare theorem-by-theorem with the closest prior result.
- For experimental comments, add power, robustness, treatment checks, or clearer
implementation details.
- Keep the contribution framed as advancing game theory or its applications, not
merely adding a new empirical setting.
## Response paragraph pattern
```text
We thank the referee for identifying this issue. We now revise [theorem/model/
experiment] by [change]. The new material appears in [section/table/appendix].
It addresses the concern because [logic tied to equilibrium/proof/design].
```
## Output format
```text
[Decision] major revision / minor revision
[Editor priority] ...
[Theory changes] ...
[Experiment/numerics changes] ...
[Positioning changes] ...
[Next step] revise manuscript + response letter
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!