// 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.
| name | skills |
| description | 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. |
Follow this dispatcher structure:
stage1, stage2, stage4, or stage5).stage1 and stage2, apply the stage template first, then select conference-specific extension.stage1/template/SKILL.md: Shared Stage 1 breakdown template. Apply before conference overrides.stage1/iclr/SKILL.md: Convert raw reviewer feedback into a structured breakdown for rebuttal drafting.stage1/icml/SKILL.md: Convert raw reviewer feedback into a structured breakdown for rebuttal drafting (ICML mapping).stage2/template/SKILL.md: Shared Stage 2 refine template. Apply before conference overrides.stage2/iclr/SKILL.md: Refine Stage2 outline drafts into reviewer-facing rebuttal prose.stage2/icml/SKILL.md: Refine Stage2 outline drafts into reviewer-facing rebuttal prose (ICML labeling).stage4/condense/SKILL.md: Condense Stage 3 combined discussion into reusable markdown context.stage4/refine/SKILL.md: Refine follow-up response using condensed context + follow-up question + user draft.stage5/final-remarks/SKILL.md: Fill Stage 5 final remarks template from all reviewers' condensed markdown context.polish/SKILL.md: Polish (rephrase) a rebuttal message template for clarity and professionalism while preserving the original structure, tone, and intent.These skills apply across multiple stages and provide strategic, stylistic, and quality guidance:
utility/stage/review-response/SKILL.md: Comment classification (Major/Minor/Misunderstanding/Typo) and response strategy selection (Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment). Use when planning how to respond to any reviewer concern.utility/stage/writing-anti-ai/SKILL.md: Remove AI-generated writing patterns from rebuttal prose. Use after Stage 2 refinement or Stage 4 follow-up when text reads formulaic or robotic.utility/stage/text-condense/SKILL.md: Condense selected rebuttal prose into fewer words without changing meaning. Use when a paragraph is too long but the technical content should stay intact.utility/stage/rebuttal-self-review/SKILL.md: Pre-submission quality checklist covering coverage, tone, factual accuracy, structure, and clarity. Use after Stage 3 compilation or Stage 5 final remarks.utility/stage/citation-verification/SKILL.md: Verification workflow for any new citation added during rebuttal writing. Use when LLM-suggested references appear in Stage 2 drafts.If a requested stage/conference does not exist, stop and ask for missing spec before inventing format. When adding a new conference for Stage 1 or Stage 2, extend the stage template and edit only conference-specific differences.
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.