メニュー
Refine a Stage 4 follow-up response using condensed prior discussion context, current follow-up question, and the user's draft.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | stage4-refine-followup |
| description | Refine a Stage 4 follow-up response using condensed prior discussion context, current follow-up question, and the user's draft. |
Generate a polished follow-up response for multi-round reviewer discussion.
condensed_markdown: condensed context from Stage4 condense skill.followup_question: current reviewer follow-up question text.draft: user-authored draft response.Return strict JSON:
{ "refinedText": "..." }
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.