RebuttalStudio

Multi-stage rebuttal analysis skill for RebuttalStudio. Use when organizing reviewer comments into stage-specific conference workflows, including stage1 breakdown, stage2 refinement, stage4 multi-round follow-up, and stage5 final remarks generation.

Condense rebuttal prose into fewer words without changing the original meaning. Use when a response block, paragraph, or selected passage is too long but all technical content, citations, and commitments must stay intact. Supports academic English.

Summarize extracted paper text into concise Markdown memory for later Stage 2 and Stage 4 background use, with fixed section headings and no fabricated claims.

Break down full NeurIPS reviewer responses into structured rebuttal units. Use when input contains NeurIPS reviewer fields (Summary, Strengths and Weaknesses, Questions, Limitations) and numeric scores (Rating, Confidence, Quality, Clarity, Significance, Originality). Splits questions and limitations into granular response items while preserving original wording for quoted issues.

Refine a Stage2 NeurIPS rebuttal draft into polished, reviewer-facing prose in the author's style; preserve factual grounding, optionally prepend a courteous opening phrase, and normalize tables/code/formulas into Markdown.

Break down full ARR (ACL Rolling Review) reviewer responses into structured rebuttal units. Use when input contains ARR reviewer fields (Paper Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Comments/Suggestions) and numeric scores (Confidence, Soundness, Excitement, Overall Assessment, Reproducibility). Splits weaknesses and comments/suggestions into granular response items while preserving original wording for quoted issues.

Refine a Stage2 ARR (ACL Rolling Review) rebuttal draft into polished, reviewer-facing prose in the author's style; preserve factual grounding, optionally prepend a courteous opening phrase, and normalize tables/code/formulas into Markdown.

Break down full ICLR reviewer responses into structured rebuttal units. Use when input contains reviewer summary/presentation/contribution/strength/weakness/question text and the goal is to split weaknesses/questions into granular R-style response items while preserving original wording for quoted issues.

Break down full ICML reviewer responses into structured rebuttal units. Use when input contains reviewer summary/presentation/contribution/strength/weakness/question text and the goal is to split weaknesses/questions into granular R-style response items while preserving original wording for quoted issues.

Base template for Stage1 reviewer-comment breakdown. Use when creating or extending conference-specific Stage1 skills (for example ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, ACL) so shared extraction, splitting, and response-mapping logic stays consistent.

Refine a Stage2 ICLR rebuttal draft into polished, reviewer-facing prose in the author's style; preserve factual grounding, optionally prepend a courteous opening phrase, and normalize tables/code/formulas into Markdown.

Refine a Stage2 ICML rebuttal draft into polished, reviewer-facing prose in the author's style; preserve factual grounding, optionally prepend a courteous opening phrase, and normalize tables/code/formulas into Markdown.

Base template for Stage2 rebuttal refinement. Use when creating or extending conference-specific Stage2 skills so all venues share the same high-quality writing constraints, JSON output format, and normalization rules.

Fill a Stage5 final remarks template using condensed discussion markdown from all reviewers and optional rating changes. Use when generating final remarks after Stage3/Stage4 discussion.

Systematic quality check for a completed rebuttal document before submission. Use after Stage 3 document compilation or after Stage 5 final remarks writing to verify completeness, tone, factual accuracy, and structural integrity. Catches common rebuttal errors before they reach reviewers.

Systematic review response strategy guide for RebuttalStudio. Use when developing response strategies for reviewer comments, deciding how to classify concerns, or choosing between Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment approaches at any stage of the rebuttal pipeline.

Verification guide for citations added during rebuttal writing. Use when Stage 2 responses introduce new references, when the Area Chair asks about a cited paper, or when any citation in the rebuttal might have been AI-generated. Prevents the serious credibility damage of fabricated references in reviewer-facing documents.

Remove AI-generated writing patterns from rebuttal prose to make it sound natural, direct, and authentically human-authored. Use when a Stage 2 refined draft or Stage 4 follow-up response reads too formulaic, robotic, or "GPT-like". Supports academic English.

Polish (rephrase) a rebuttal message template for clarity and professionalism while preserving the original structure, tone, and intent.

Condense Stage 3 combined discussion content into compact markdown context for Stage 4 multi-round follow-up drafting.

Refine a Stage 4 follow-up response using condensed prior discussion context, current follow-up question, and the user's draft.