القائمة
Polish (rephrase) a rebuttal message template for clarity and professionalism while preserving the original structure, tone, and intent.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | template-polish |
| description | Polish (rephrase) a rebuttal message template for clarity and professionalism while preserving the original structure, tone, and intent. |
Rephrase a rebuttal-related message (e.g. nudge email, status update) so it reads naturally and clearly.
{{reviewerId}}, {{submissionId}}, or literal X must remain verbatim.Return JSON only (no markdown fences) with this schema:
{"text": "...polished text..."}
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.