跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md3.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

runtsang/RebuttalStudio2192026年4月4日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

runtsang/RebuttalStudio2192026年4月4日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

runtsang/RebuttalStudio2192026年4月4日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

runtsang/RebuttalStudio2192026年4月4日 更新

skills

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

runtsang/RebuttalStudio2192026年4月4日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

runtsang/RebuttalStudio2192026年4月4日 更新

查看 runtsang 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题