rebuttal-pipeline

name	rebuttal-pipeline
description	Workflow 4: Submission rebuttal pipeline. Parses external reviews, enforces coverage and grounding, drafts a safe text-only rebuttal under venue limits, and manages follow-up rounds. Use when user says "rebuttal", "reply to reviewers", "ICML rebuttal", "OpenReview response", or wants to answer external reviews safely.

Workflow 4: Rebuttal

Prepare and maintain a grounded, venue-compliant rebuttal for: $ARGUMENTS

Scope

This skill is optimized for:

• ICML-style text-only rebuttal
• strict character limits
• multiple reviewers
• follow-up rounds after the initial rebuttal
• safe drafting with no fabrication, no overpromise, and full issue coverage

This skill does not:

• run new experiments automatically
• generate new theorem claims automatically
• edit or upload a revised PDF
• submit to OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP

If the user already has new results, derivations, or approved commitments, the skill can incorporate them as user-confirmed evidence.

Lifecycle Position

Workflow 1:   paper planning and evidence collection
Workflow 1.5: experiment planning/results collection
Workflow 2:   paper review and submission checks
Workflow 3:   paper-writing
Workflow 4:   rebuttal (post-submission external reviews)

Constants

• VENUE = ICML — Default venue. Override if needed.
• RESPONSE_MODE = TEXT_ONLY — v1 default.
• REVIEW_ROLE = paper architect/reviewer — Use the AGENTS.md paper review role for internal stress-testing. Do not hard-code a model or backend.
• MAX_INTERNAL_DRAFT_ROUNDS = 2 — draft → lint → revise.
• MAX_STRESS_TEST_ROUNDS = 1 — One independent reviewer critique round.
• MAX_FOLLOWUP_ROUNDS = 3 — per reviewer thread.
• AUTO_EXPERIMENT = false — When true, create a supplementary experiment plan when the strategy plan identifies reviewer concerns that require new empirical evidence. When false (default), pause and present the evidence gap to the user for manual handling.
• QUICK_MODE = false — When true, only run Phase 0-3 (parse reviews, atomize concerns, build strategy). Outputs ISSUE_BOARD.md + STRATEGY_PLAN.md and stops — no drafting, no stress test. Useful for quickly understanding what reviewers want before deciding how to respond.
• REBUTTAL_DIR = rebuttal/

Override: /rebuttal "paper/" — venue: NeurIPS, character limit: 5000

Required Inputs

1. Paper source — PDF, LaTeX directory, or narrative summary
2. Raw reviews — pasted text, markdown, or PDF with reviewer IDs
3. Venue rules — venue name, character/word limit, text-only or revised PDF allowed
4. Current stage — initial rebuttal or follow-up round

If venue rules or limit are missing, stop and ask before drafting.

Safety Model

Three hard gates — if any fails, do NOT finalize:

1. Provenance gate — every factual statement maps to: paper, review, user_confirmed_result, user_confirmed_derivation, or future_work. No source = blocked.
2. Commitment gate — every promise maps to: already_done, approved_for_rebuttal, or future_work_only. Not approved = blocked.
3. Coverage gate — every reviewer concern ends in: answered, deferred_intentionally, or needs_user_input. No issue disappears.

Workflow

Phase 0: Resume or Initialize

1. If rebuttal/REBUTTAL_STATE.md exists → resume from recorded phase
2. Otherwise → create rebuttal/, initialize all output documents
3. Load paper, reviews, venue rules, any user-confirmed evidence

Phase 1: Validate Inputs and Normalize Reviews

1. Validate venue rules are explicit
2. Normalize all reviewer text into rebuttal/REVIEWS_RAW.md (verbatim)
3. Record metadata in rebuttal/REBUTTAL_STATE.md
4. If ambiguous, pause and ask

Phase 2: Atomize and Classify Reviewer Concerns

Create rebuttal/ISSUE_BOARD.md.

For each atomic concern:

• issue_id (e.g., R1-C2)
• reviewer, round, raw_anchor (short quote)
• issue_type: assumptions / theorem_rigor / novelty / empirical_support / baseline_comparison / complexity / practical_significance / clarity / reproducibility / other
• severity: critical / major / minor
• reviewer_stance: positive / swing / negative / unknown
• response_mode: direct_clarification / grounded_evidence / nearest_work_delta / assumption_hierarchy / narrow_concession / future_work_boundary
• status: open / answered / deferred / needs_user_input

Phase 3: Build Strategy Plan

Create rebuttal/STRATEGY_PLAN.md.

1. Identify 2-4 global themes resolving shared concerns
2. Choose response mode per issue
3. Build character budget (10-15% opener, 75-80% per-reviewer, 5-10% closing)
4. Identify blocked claims (ungrounded or unapproved)
5. If unresolved blockers → pause and present to user

QUICK_MODE exit: If QUICK_MODE = true, stop here. Present ISSUE_BOARD.md + STRATEGY_PLAN.md to the user and summarize: how many issues per reviewer, shared vs unique concerns, recommended priorities, and evidence gaps. The user can then decide to continue with full rebuttal (/rebuttal — quick mode: false) or write manually.

Phase 3.5: Evidence Sprint (when AUTO_EXPERIMENT = true)

Skip entirely if AUTO_EXPERIMENT is false — instead, pause and present the evidence gaps to the user.

If the strategy plan identifies issues that require new empirical evidence (tagged response_mode: grounded_evidence with evidence_source: needs_experiment):

1. Generate a mini experiment plan from the reviewer concerns:

   • What to run (ablation, baseline comparison, scale-up, condition check)
   • Success criterion (what result would satisfy the reviewer)
   • Estimated GPU-hours

2. Write the mini plan to rebuttal/REBUTTAL_EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md and ask the user before running or claiming any new results.

3. After the user provides completed results, update ISSUE_BOARD.md:

   • Tag completed experiments as user_confirmed_result
   • Update evidence source for relevant issue cards

4. If experiments fail or are inconclusive:

   • Switch response mode to narrow_concession or future_work_boundary
   • Do NOT fabricate positive results

5. Save experiment results to rebuttal/REBUTTAL_EXPERIMENTS.md for provenance tracking.

Time guard: If estimated GPU-hours exceed rebuttal deadline, skip and flag for manual handling.

Phase 4: Draft Initial Rebuttal

Create rebuttal/REBUTTAL_DRAFT_v1.md.

Structure:

1. Short opener — thank reviewers + 2-4 global resolutions
2. Per-reviewer numbered responses — answer → evidence → implication
3. Short closing — resolved / remaining / acceptance case

Default reply pattern per issue:

• Sentence 1: direct answer
• Sentence 2-4: grounded evidence
• Last sentence: implication for the paper

Heuristics from 5 successful rebuttals:

• Evidence > assertion
• Global narrative first, per-reviewer detail second
• Concrete numbers for counter-intuitive points
• Name closest prior work + exact delta for novelty disputes
• Concede narrowly when reviewer is right
• For theory: separate core vs technical assumptions
• Answer friendly reviewers too

Hard rules:

• NEVER invent experiments, numbers, derivations, citations, or links
• NEVER promise what user hasn't approved
• If no strong evidence exists, say less not more

Also generate rebuttal/PASTE_READY.txt (plain text, exact character count).

Also generate rebuttal/REVISION_PLAN.md — the overall revision checklist.

This document is the single source of truth for every paper revision promised (explicitly or implicitly) in the rebuttal draft. It exists so the author can track follow-through after the rebuttal is submitted, and so the commitment gate in Phase 5 has a concrete artifact to validate against.

Structure:

1. Header

   • Paper title, venue, character limit, rebuttal round
   • Links back to ISSUE_BOARD.md, STRATEGY_PLAN.md, REBUTTAL_DRAFT_v1.md

2. Overall checklist — a single flat GitHub-style checklist covering every revision item, so the author can tick items off as they land in the camera-ready / revised PDF:

   ## Overall Checklist
   
   - [ ] (R1-C2) Add assumption hierarchy table to Section 3.1 — commitment: `approved_for_rebuttal` — owner: author — status: pending
   - [ ] (R2-C1) Clarify novelty delta vs. Smith'24 in Section 2 related work — commitment: `already_done` — status: verify wording
   - [ ] (R3-C4) Add runtime breakdown figure to Appendix B — commitment: `future_work_only` — status: deferred, note in camera-ready
   - ...
   

   Checklist items must be atomic (one paper edit per line) and each must reference its issue_id so it maps back to ISSUE_BOARD.md.

3. Grouped view — the same items regrouped by (a) paper section/location and (b) severity, so the author can plan the revision pass efficiently.

4. Commitment summary — counts of already_done / approved_for_rebuttal / future_work_only, plus any needs_user_input items that are blocking.

5. Out-of-scope log — reviewer concerns that will not trigger a paper revision (e.g. deferred_intentionally, narrow_concession with no edit), with a one-line reason each. This keeps the checklist honest: nothing silently disappears.

Rules for REVISION_PLAN.md:

• Every checklist item must map to at least one issue_id from ISSUE_BOARD.md.
• Every promise in REBUTTAL_DRAFT_v1.md that implies a paper edit must appear as a checklist item — if it is not in the plan, it is a commitment-gate violation.
• Never add items that are not backed by the draft or by user-confirmed evidence.
• On rerun / follow-up rounds, update checkbox state in place rather than regenerating from scratch.

Phase 5: Safety Validation

Run all lints:

1. Coverage — every issue maps to draft anchor
2. Provenance — every factual sentence has source
3. Commitment — promises are approved AND every paper-edit promise in the draft appears as a checklist item in REVISION_PLAN.md (and vice versa — no orphan items in the plan)
4. Tone — flag aggressive/submissive/evasive phrases
5. Consistency — no contradictions across reviewer replies
6. Limit — exact character count, compress if over (redundancy → friendly → opener → wording, never drop critical answers)

Phase 6: Paper Architect/Reviewer Stress Test

Paper architect/reviewer task:
  Stress-test this rebuttal draft:
  [raw reviews + issue board + draft + venue rules]

  1. Unanswered or weakly answered concerns?
  2. Unsupported factual statements?
  3. Risky or unapproved promises?
  4. Tone problems?
  5. Paragraph most likely to backfire with meta-reviewer?
  6. Minimal grounded fixes only. Do NOT invent evidence.

  Verdict: safe to submit / needs revision

Save full response to rebuttal/REVIEWER_STRESS_TEST.md. If hard safety blocker → revise before finalizing.

Phase 7: Finalize — Two Versions

Produce two outputs for different purposes:

1. rebuttal/PASTE_READY.txt — the strict version

   • Plain text, exact character count, fits venue limit
   • Ready to paste directly into OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP
   • No markdown formatting, no extras

2. rebuttal/REBUTTAL_DRAFT_rich.md — the extended version

   • Same structure but with more detail: fuller explanations, additional evidence, optional paragraphs
   • Marked with [OPTIONAL — cut if over limit] for sections that exceed the strict version
   • Author can read this to understand the full reasoning, then manually decide what to keep/cut/rewrite
   • Useful for follow-up rounds — the extra material is pre-written

3. Update rebuttal/REBUTTAL_STATE.md

4. Refresh rebuttal/REVISION_PLAN.md so the overall checklist matches the final draft (add items, mark already_done as checked, carry forward any pending items)

5. Present to user:

   • PASTE_READY.txt character count vs venue limit
   • REBUTTAL_DRAFT_rich.md for review and manual editing
   • REVISION_PLAN.md checklist — counts of pending / approved / deferred
   • Remaining risks + lines needing manual approval

Phase 8: Follow-Up Rounds

When new reviewer comments arrive:

1. Append verbatim to rebuttal/FOLLOWUP_LOG.md
2. Link to existing issues or create new ones
3. Draft delta reply only (not full rewrite)
4. Update rebuttal/REVISION_PLAN.md in place — add any new checklist items introduced by the follow-up, tick off items the author has already completed, and keep existing items' status current
5. Re-run safety lints
6. Use the prior rebuttal state and reviewer trace for continuity if useful
7. Rules: escalate technically not rhetorically; concede if reviewer is correct; stop arguing if reviewer is immovable and no new evidence exists

Key Rules

• Large file handling: If a large output cannot be written in one pass, use the available project-safe file editing mechanism to write it in smaller chunks and then verify the final file.
• Never fabricate. No invented evidence, numbers, derivations, citations, or links.
• Never overpromise. Only promise what user explicitly approved.
• Full coverage. Every reviewer concern tracked and accounted for.
• Preserve raw records. Reviews and reviewer outputs stored verbatim.
• Global + per-reviewer structure. Shared concerns in opener.
• Answer friendly reviewers too. Reinforce supportive framing.
• Meta-reviewer closing. Summarize resolved/remaining/why accept.
• Evidence > rhetoric. Derivations and numbers over prose.
• Concede selectively. Narrow honest concessions > broad denials.
• Don't waste space on unwinnable arguments. Answer once, move on.
• Respect the limit. Character budget is a hard constraint.
• Resume cleanly. Continue from REBUTTAL_STATE.md on rerun.
• Anti-hallucination citations. Any reference added must go through DBLP → CrossRef → [VERIFY].

Review Tracing

After each reviewer call, save the trace following ../shared-references/review-tracing.md. Write files directly to paper/review-traces/rebuttal/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter when present (default: full).