Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

stage1-breakdown-template

Base template for Stage1 reviewer-comment breakdown. Use when creating or extending conference-specific Stage1 skills (for example ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, ACL) so shared extraction, splitting, and response-mapping logic stays consistent.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Stage 1 · Breakdown Base Template

Use this template as the shared core for all Stage1 conference variants. Conference-specific files must apply this template first, then add only necessary overrides.

Shared input assumptions

  • Input is one reviewer's full text (OpenReview export, PDF copy, DOC/DOCX paste, etc.).
  • Review sections may appear as headings, bullets, numbered lists, or mixed prose.
  • A single bullet can contain multiple independent concerns.

Shared mandatory workflow

  1. Extract conference-defined scores (numbers only)

    • Extract every score required by the conference extension.
    • Keep values numeric only (for example 6, 4, 3), without scale explanations.
    • If a score is missing, leave it empty rather than inventing.
  2. Preserve designated sections verbatim

    • Keep conference-defined preserved sections unchanged.
    • Keep line breaks where possible.
  3. Split issue-bearing sections into atomic issues

    • Split conference-defined weakness/question sources into issue-level items.
    • One atomic issue should correspond to one independent concern or request.
    • Split further if one item contains multiple asks.
  4. Create response blocks (Response1 ... ResponseN)

    • Each response block must include:
      • title: generated short subtitle
      • source: weakness or question
      • source_id: weaknessN or questionN
      • quoted_issue: exact verbatim text of the mapped atomic issue
  5. Apply prefix and numbering rules

    • Issues from weakness-type source sections must use weaknessN.
    • Issues from question-type source sections must use questionN.
    • Number weaknessN and questionN independently.

Shared splitting heuristics

Split when any of these applies:

  • Multiple independent asks connected by "and", "also", "in addition", "furthermore".
  • Topic shift inside one bullet (for example novelty vs experiments).
  • Distinct actionable requests (for example "clarify theorem" and "add baseline").
  • Different concern types in one item (for example validity + writing quality).

Do not split when sentences elaborate one single concern.

Shared output skeleton

Use this structure, with conference-specific keys provided by the extension file:

# Stage1 <CONFERENCE> Breakdown

## Scores
- <score_key_1>: <number>
- <score_key_2>: <number>

## Preserved Sections
- summary: |
  <verbatim text>
- strength: |
  <verbatim text>

## Atomic Issues
- weakness1: "<verbatim quoted issue>"
- weakness2: "<verbatim quoted issue>"
- question1: "<verbatim quoted issue>"

## Responses
### Response1
- title: <generated subtitle>
- source: weakness
- source_id: weakness1
- quoted_issue: "<same verbatim text as weakness1>"

Shared quality checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

  • Preserved sections are unchanged.
  • Every atomic issue appears exactly once in Atomic Issues.
  • Every atomic issue maps to exactly one response block.
  • Every quoted_issue is verbatim.

Conference extension contract

Conference-specific Stage1 files must define:

  • Score field mapping and required score keys.
  • Preserved section mapping.
  • Weakness/question source section mapping.
  • Output header text (# Stage1 <CONFERENCE> Breakdown).

Do not rewrite shared logic in conference files unless a true conference-specific exception exists.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Verification guide for citations added during rebuttal writing. Use when Stage 2 responses introduce new references, when the Area Chair asks about a cited paper, or when any citation in the rebuttal might have been AI-generated. Prevents the serious credibility damage of fabricated references in reviewer-facing documents.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

runtsang/RebuttalStudio219Updated Apr 4, 2026

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

runtsang/RebuttalStudio219Updated Apr 4, 2026

Systematic quality check for a completed rebuttal document before submission. Use after Stage 3 document compilation or after Stage 5 final remarks writing to verify completeness, tone, factual accuracy, and structural integrity. Catches common rebuttal errors before they reach reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

runtsang/RebuttalStudio219Updated Apr 4, 2026

Systematic review response strategy guide for RebuttalStudio. Use when developing response strategies for reviewer comments, deciding how to classify concerns, or choosing between Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment approaches at any stage of the rebuttal pipeline.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

runtsang/RebuttalStudio219Updated Apr 4, 2026

skills

Free

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

runtsang/RebuttalStudio219Updated Apr 4, 2026

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

runtsang/RebuttalStudio219Updated Apr 4, 2026

See all skills by runtsang

Report a problem with this skill