118 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Refine a Stage2 ICML 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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Base template for Stage2 rebuttal refinement. Use when creating or extending conference-specific Stage2 skills so all venues share the same high-quality writing constraints, JSON output format, and normalization rules.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Break down full ICLR 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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when planning, drafting, revising, compressing, or auditing conference rebuttals and author responses in OpenReview Markdown or PDF. Supports exact reviewer mapping, evidence and experiment integration, guided risk decisions, venue-format validation, and blind reviewer/AC audits.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
学术论文审稿意见回复信。输入是审稿人意见全文、reviewer comments、major/minor revision letter、或既有的 rebuttal 草稿时使用。功能包括：意见拆解 + ID 分配 + 行动映射（classify）、起草 point-by-point 回复（draft）、润色既有草稿（polish）、防御性与真实性审查（audit）、起草给编辑的 cover letter（cover）。覆盖期刊与会议 rebuttal、4 种困难场景（矛盾意见、不可能实验、缺关键证据、minor revision）。不适用于：正文段落写作（用 academic-writing）、图表生成（用 academic-figure）、参考文献格式（用 academic-citation）。
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
12-agent academic paper writing pipeline. 11 modes (full/plan/outline/revision/revision-coach/abstract/lit-review/format-convert/citation-check/disclosure/rebuttal-audit). 6 paper types, 5 citation formats, bilingual abstracts, LaTeX/DOCX-via-Pandoc/PDF output. Style Calibration + Writing Quality Check + Anti-Patterns with IRON RULE markers. Triggers: write paper, academic paper, guide my paper, parse reviews, audit my rebuttal, check my response draft, AI disclosure, 寫論文, 學術論文, 引導我寫論文, 審查意見, 評估回覆, 논문 작성, 초록 작성, 논문 수정, 논문 계획을 도와줘, 심사 의견 반영, 답변서 점검, AI 사용 고지.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Draft, audit, or revise responses to peer review, revision cover letters, and marked-manuscript or LaTeX revision packages. Use for 审稿意见回复、逐点回复、返修信、 rebuttals and edits to existing response drafts. Initial-submission materials belong to nature-writing; simulated peer review belongs to nature-reviewer.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Provide evidence-grounded mock peer review of scientific manuscripts or excerpts, covering significance, validity, and major/minor concerns. Use for 模拟审稿、投稿前自审、审稿人视角评估; not author rebuttal drafting.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word rejection memo, then a second fresh reviewer defends the paper point-by-point and surfaces still-unresolved critical issues. Use when user says "kill argument", "adversarial review", "hostile review", "rebuttal preparation", "reviewer-2 simulation", or before submitting a theory paper that has already passed standard review rounds.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
ARS-Codex research, writing, manuscript review, study screening, and experiments. Use for deep research, literature or systematic reviews, meta-analysis, research questions, drafts, revisions, roadmaps, abstracts, citations, integrity checks, peer review, research-to-paper. Screen records: sr-screener. Citation triggers: check citations, look over the refs, 檢查引用, 檢查參考文獻, 인용 확인, 인용 형식 검사. Korean: 논문 심사, 논문 수정, 초록 작성, 체계적 문헌고찰, 연구부터 논문까지. Español: revisión de literatura, revisar artículo, enmendar mi artículo, escribir resumen, investigación a artículo. Also use for ARS aliases: /ars-plan, /ars-outline, /ars-abstract, /ars-lit-review, /ars-citation-check, /ars-disclosure, /ars-format-convert, /ars-3w, /ars-revision-coach, /ars-revision, /ars-reviewer, /ars-mark-read, /ars-unmark-read, /ars-cache-invalidate, /ars-rebuttal-audit, /ars-full. Prompts, references, templates, and contracts live under ars/.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Draft, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 reviewer.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Bugcrowd-specific reporting tactics complementing report-writing: VRT category search-and-fallback strategy when no exact match exists, manual severity override when VRT defaults underrate impact, severity-request paragraph as first body section, OOS-clause rebuttal templates (rate limiting on auth-flow endpoints, debug-info framing, user-enumeration with sensitive PII, theoretical-issue counter), chained-finding cross-reference patterns, target selection for QA-vs-prod programs, researcher-side hygiene (Bugcrowdninja email alias, account state restoration, friendly-tester posture). Use when filing a Bugcrowd submission, when VRT default seems wrong, when triager closes as OOS or downgrades severity, when chaining linked submissions, or when scope distinguishes production from QA. Pairs with report-writing and triage-validation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Chinese-first research paper writing, revision, polishing, section drafting, rebuttal, peer-review response, thesis prose improvement, and manuscript argument planning. Use when the user asks to write or revise论文正文, abstracts, introductions, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, related work, responses to reviewers, LaTeX/Overleaf text, or academic prose. Preserve formulas, English paper titles, terms, citations, and measured results.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when planning an end-to-end scholarly publishing workflow, including manuscript source-of-truth, submission assets, revision/rebuttal files, camera-ready checks, reproducible build expectations, and publication package structure.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
论文写作、修改、压缩和实验组织全流程中阻止【防御性写作】。把论文视为一场学术发布会， 而不是项目总结、实验日志或自我审查报告：识别这项工作最值得发表的价值，围绕它建立 最有利、最完整、最有说服力的叙事。不平均展示、不主动示弱、不写实验流水账、不替审稿人 攻击自己。 触发词：论文润色、论文修改、写摘要、写引言、写结论、压缩论文、rebuttal、回复审稿意见、 组织实验、论文AI味、防御性写作、心虚。
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Stops defensive writing across the entire paper lifecycle — writing, revising, cutting, and organizing experiments. Treats the paper as a press conference, not a project summary, lab log, or self-audit: identify the single most publishable strength of the work and build the most favorable, complete, and persuasive narrative around it. Never present everything evenly, never volunteer weakness, never write an experiment diary, never attack the paper on the reviewer's behalf. Triggers: polish my paper, revise manuscript, write abstract, write introduction, write conclusion, shorten paper, rebuttal, respond to reviewers, organize experiments, defensive writing, AI-flavored academic writing.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Improve the clarity and voice of AI-assisted academic writing (papers, theses, rebuttals) and funding proposals (NSF Project Summary/Description, NIH Specific Aims): preserve scholarly conventions, match claims to evidence (and, for proposals, claims to feasibility), and match the author's own voice. It never changes a number, result, or citation, and it is not for evading AI-use disclosure. Use when editing AI-assisted academic prose or grant proposals.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Turns reviewer comments into structured, professional point-by-point responses linked to manuscript revisions, clarifications, rebuttals, and additional analyses.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when writing the response to an American Anthropologist (AA) revise-and-resubmit. AA uses anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, often with cross-subfield reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident and the ethnographic contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new evidence.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when anticipating referee objections or calibrating review expectations for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript before submission. Pre-empts the objections theory referees raise and reads the editorial process; it does not draft the response letter (see aejmic-rebuttal).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when writing the response to an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) revision decision. AgSy review is single anonymized with at least two expert systems reviewers and an editor decision, and revisions often turn on model evaluation, sensitivity/uncertainty, and trade-off framing. The response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。