Break down full ICML reviewer responses into structured rebuttal units. Use when input contains reviewer summary/presentation/contribution/strength/weakness/question text and the goal is to split weaknesses/questions into granular R-style response items while preserving original wording for quoted issues.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Apply the shared template first:
skills/stage1/template/SKILL.mdThen apply only the ICML-specific overrides below.
Extract exactly these six keys (numbers only):
rating <- Overall Recommendationconfidence <- Confidencesoundness <- Soundnesspresentation <- Presentationsignificance <- Significanceoriginality <- Originalitysummary <- Summarystrength <- Limitations (keep compatibility with shared output key naming)Strengths And Weaknesses (extract only concern/criticism parts)Key Questions For Authors# Stage1 ICML Breakdown## Scores must contain exactly the six keys above.If "Strengths And Weaknesses" mixes praise and criticism in one bullet, keep praise in preserved context and split only actionable weakness concerns into atomic issues.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.