skills/stage1/icml/SKILL.md
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.
npx skillsauth add runtsang/rebuttalstudio stage1-icml-breakdownInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
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.
data-ai
Remove AI-generated writing patterns from rebuttal prose to make it sound natural, direct, and authentically human-authored. Use when a Stage 2 refined draft or Stage 4 follow-up response reads too formulaic, robotic, or "GPT-like". Supports academic English.
testing
Condense rebuttal prose into fewer words without changing the original meaning. Use when a response block, paragraph, or selected passage is too long but all technical content, citations, and commitments must stay intact. Supports academic English.
development
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.
testing
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.