메뉴
当你在收到《自动化学报》(Acta Automatica Sinica, AAS) 的外审意见、需要撰写退修说明与逐条答复信时调用。给出逐条对应审稿意见的答复结构、修改对照(改前→改后)、大修/小修的不同策略、对分歧意见的礼貌据理回应、保持双盲的匿名口径、以及按编辑部期限组织修改稿，帮助作者在 Acta Automatica Sinica 的多轮退修与重新送审中最大化被录用的机会。
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Use when preparing the accountability artifacts that accompany an ACM FAccT paper — datasheets for datasets, model cards, data statements, audit and impact-assessment documentation, and released code/data — since FAccT's culture centers documentation and accountability infrastructure rather than a formal ACM artifact-badging track; covers what makes each genre credible, anonymized-review versus public-release versions, and consistency with the paper's harm claims.
Use when drafting ACM FAccT author responses — the short factual-correction rebuttal after preliminary reviews, and, distinctively for the 2026-new process, the Revise-and-resubmit round where you address Area-Chair-prioritized concerns from a mixed CS+law+social-science panel, map each to a concrete change, and survive a re-review while keeping mutual anonymity.
Use when preparing an accepted ACM FAccT paper for camera-ready — de-anonymizing and adding the withheld Positionality/Acknowledgements statements, switching to the acmart sigconf proceedings format, ACM metadata (DOI, ORCID, CCS concepts, rights), the two-round camera-ready calendar for Accept vs Revise papers, ACM Open Access, finalizing datasheets/model cards, and integrating required changes without scope creep.
Use when designing or auditing ACM FAccT empirical work — quantitative fairness audits with disaggregated metrics and fair baselines, qualitative and participatory studies with coding and reflexivity, mixed-methods designs, sound handling of protected attributes and proxies, consent and IRB for human-subjects and community-facing work, and matching evidence to the shape of a fairness/accountability/transparency claim.
Use when positioning an ACM FAccT submission across its many disciplinary lanes — algorithmic fairness/ML, HCI, law and policy, STS and critical theory, and prior FAccT/FAT* proceedings — writing delta-first contrast that a mixed reviewer pool will accept, citing borrowed constructs to their real origin, keeping self-citations mutually anonymous, and declaring overlap with workshops, preprints, and prior versions.
Use when strengthening ACM FAccT transparency and reproducibility — releasing code, data, and analysis for quantitative audits; documenting datasets and models with datasheets, model cards, and data statements; making qualitative and participatory work auditable without breaking confidentiality; pinning provenance for scraped and model-generated data; and keeping the paper, the supplementary material, and any released artifact consistent.
| name | aas-author-response |
| description | 当你在收到《自动化学报》(Acta Automatica Sinica, AAS) 的外审意见、需要撰写退修说明与逐条答复信时调用。给出逐条对应审稿意见的答复结构、修改对照(改前→改后)、大修/小修的不同策略、对分歧意见的礼貌据理回应、保持双盲的匿名口径、以及按编辑部期限组织修改稿，帮助作者在 Acta Automatica Sinica 的多轮退修与重新送审中最大化被录用的机会。 |
本技能帮你为《自动化学报》(Acta Automatica Sinica, AAS) 撰写退修说明与逐条答复。AAS 双盲三审制下
大修常重新送审，一封清晰、逐条、可核对的答复信能显著提高录用概率。以下方法于 2026-07-09 核验框架
（见 resources/official-source-map.md）；退修期限以编辑部通知为准（待核实）。
致编辑与各位审稿专家：
感谢对本文的评审。我们已按意见逐条修改，主要改动概述如下：（3~5 句总述）
下文对每位审稿人的每条意见逐一回应，[原文位置]标注对应修改处。
—— 审稿人 1 ——
意见1.1：<原文引用>
回应：<接受/说明> + <具体改动> + <改后位置>
...
每条意见都用固定三段，方便审稿人核对：
| 段 | 内容 |
|---|---|
| 复述意见 | 原样引用审稿人意见，不曲解 |
| 回应 | 接受并改 / 部分接受 / 据理说明分歧 |
| 落点 | 指明修改稿中的具体位置（章节/图表/公式号） |
对关键修改给出"改前→改后"引文，让审稿人一眼看到变化：
[改前] 原句/原公式
[改后] 修改后句/公式
[位置] 第X节 / 式(y) / 图z
| 类型 | 策略 |
|---|---|
| 大修 | 系统性回应，可能补实验/补证明；预期重新送审，改动要经得起复核 |
| 小修 | 精确快速修订，逐条确认，避免引入新问题 |
大修时在答复信开头用一段总述"本轮主要新增了什么"（新实验、新证明、新对比），帮助外审快速把握。
[逐条] 每条意见都回应？无遗漏？
[三段式] 复述→回应→落点 齐全？
[对照] 关键改动给出改前→改后与位置？
[大修总述] 新增实验/证明/对比是否概述？
[分歧] 不同意处据理礼貌说明，未简单拒绝？
[匿名] 答复信无身份泄露、自引中性？
[期限] 在编辑部期限内提交？clean+标记版齐备？
收到意见后先分类，再决定回应顺序：
| 类别 | 处理优先级 | 做法 |
|---|---|---|
| 影响录用的核心质疑（正确性/创新性） | 最高 | 补证明/补实验，正面回应 |
| 实验充分性（基线/消融/统计） | 高 | 补对照或统计，用数据说话 |
| 写作与规范（结构/著录/图表） | 中 | 逐条修订，快速可清 |
| 表述/笔误 | 低 | 一并订正 |
先把核心质疑回应到位，这是重新送审能否通过的关键。
[版本记录] R1 意见→R1 答复→R1 修改稿；R2 意见→...
[未决项] 上一轮未完全解决、本轮继续跟进的意见
[新增证据] 每轮新补的实验/证明清单
[一致性] 修改是否同步到复现包与补充材料（见 aas-reproducibility）
《自动化学报》(Acta Automatica Sinica, AAS) 的多轮退修是提升论文质量的过程。把审稿意见当作改进
机会，逐条、可核对、据理地回应，配合 aas-review-process 的预期管理与 aas-experiments 的补充
证据，能在重新送审中稳步走向录用。全程保持双盲匿名口径，确认稿件在中文 Acta Automatica Sinica
的流程中流转。