--- name: light0305/light-review-rebuttal source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/light0305-light-review-rebuttal@1/SKILL.md source_sha256: bf1d939e61ce --- # Review and rebuttal Build a source-preserving review registry, issue matrix, revision plan, evidence/change map, response draft, commitment ledger, unknown/failure record, and delivery package. Treat prose generation as the last layer, not the first. Read [`review-rebuttal-resource-map.md`](review-rebuttal-resource-map.md) before a real run. Read [`references/workflow_contract.md`](references/workflow_contract.md) before creating or consuming canonical JSON. Read [`references.md`](references.md) when selecting review/rule sources. The competitor evidence is [`../../docs/competitors/review-rebuttal.md`](../../docs/competitors/review-rebuttal.md). ## Non-negotiable boundaries 1. Consume venue-matching's selected handoff and review context. Verify selected identity, `selected_at` timezone, `selection_basis`, user/delegated authorization, chosen candidate ID, fit/risk row, unmodified rule envelopes, source evidence path/as-of/source IDs, manuscript profile, and PDF path/hash/pages/page size/profile/compliance. Never switch venue, reorder tiers, or turn venue `UNKNOWN` into a fact. 2. Keep reviewer, editor, decision, and meta-review text verbatim in the canonical registry. Atom labels, root causes, strategies, and generated prose are interpretation layers; they never replace source text. 3. Record fetch time, source URL/type, round, reviewer ID, attachments and `AVAILABLE|UNKNOWN|UNAVAILABLE|STALE`. A 401/403/429/5xx, timeout, login, private invitation or network failure is `UNAVAILABLE`, not “no review.” 4. Never invent an experiment, analysis, citation, change, line number, reviewer identity, venue rule or result. `PLANNED` and `IN_PROGRESS` may not be phrased as completed. `DONE` requires a real change locator; completed experiment/analysis additionally requires verifiable run provenance with a matching SHA-256, not merely a local path. Before marking a response package ready, run the atom/action contract gate so source spans, reconstruction hashes, policy/ethics authorization and perspective-specific self-review are machine-checked rather than trusted. 5. Paper-writing owns manuscript claims and edits. Result-analysis owns evidence strength. Citation owns new-reference identity and claim support. Figure owns visual honesty. Typesetting owns PDF rebuild/compliance. This skill records and routes work; it does not impersonate those producers. 6. Stage 13 critical is narrow: only a routable root cause (`novelty|experiment|writing`) explicitly marked `rejection_driving=true` with a complete decision/meta-review/reviewer evidence envelope may become critical. Major labels or an overall Reject alone do not make every comment critical. 7. `reviewer_classify` and `reroute` produce advice only. Stop after presenting evidence and alternatives. Run `passport add-back-edge` only after the user chooses the root cause/back-edge. Never mutate the passport automatically. ## Canonical workflow ### 1. Verify upstream identity Require: - `light.selected_venue_handoff.v1`; - `light.review_rebuttal_venue_context.v1`; - `light.paper_claims.v1`; - `light.evidence_strength.v1`; - citation registry when any new citation is proposed; - the actual delivered PDF and its stage-11 facts. Run: ```bash python scripts/review_workflow.py \ --spec review-input.json \ --outdir review-delivery ``` If venue identity, rule envelopes, PDF hash, compliance, claims or evidence IDs do not agree, stop and repair the producer artifact. Do not “normalize” a conflict away. The selected handoff must also retain A32's audit fields: timezone-bearing `selected_at` that is not in the future, non-empty `selection_basis`, `decision_authority=user`, coherent `selected_by/status`, delegated `user_authorization` when applicable, unchanged `fit_risk`, and a readable `source_evidence.path` whose SHA-256 matches the selected handoff and whose `as_of/source_ids` cover every sourced venue rule. ### 2. Capture reviews and decisions For user-provided/private material, copy the text into `reviews[].raw_text` without correction and record `reviews[].raw_sha256` plus a timezone-aware `captured_at`; the workflow re-computes the hash and blocks future/naive capture times. For a public OpenReview forum: ```bash python scripts/fetch_openreview.py \ --forum \ --out openreview-capture.json ``` If the live API is unavailable but a fixed public PeerRead/OpenReview snapshot is the declared evidence source, capture that exact commit-pinned JSON instead: ```bash python scripts/fetch_openreview.py \ --peerread-url \ --out peerread-capture.json ``` The capture is calibration/source evidence. Do not redistribute restricted reviews. If capture is unavailable, continue only with material the user provided and retain the failure record. ### 3. Atomize without erasing source Create one atom for each distinct `request`, `claim`, `question`, `misunderstanding`, or `editorial` item. Each atom must contain an exact contiguous source span copied from `raw_text`, with start/end offsets, span text and SHA-256. Also create addressable coverage units and a reconstruction hash for the reviewer units that require a response. Assign one root cause such as `novelty`, `experiment`, `writing`, `clarification`, `citation`, `ethics`, `scope`, or `editorial`. Add a separate interpretation explaining the inferred concern. If a sentence contains two independent asks, create two atoms pointing to the same or overlapping source span; do not paraphrase the reviewer into a new source quote. Run the stricter losslessness/response-action gate before drafting: ```bash python scripts/review_response_contract.py \ --input templates/review-response-contract.example.json ``` Replace the template with the real contract. The example is intentionally non-passing until current venue policy, ethics state and user authorization are verified. This gate catches missing reviewer units, duplicate atom/action coverage, fake DONE wording, incomplete evidence kinds, policy-forbidden reviewer requests, missing reviewer competence/conflict cards, and missing `domain|method|statistics|ethics|cold_reader` self-review perspectives. ### 4. Bind issues to owned evidence and actions For every atom: - bind exact paper `claim_id` values or leave the list empty; - bind only real result-analysis evidence IDs; - choose one strategy: `acknowledge_and_fix`, `rebut_with_evidence`, `clarify`, `downgrade_claim`, or `request_editor_ruling`; - assign an owner and `PLANNED|IN_PROGRESS|DONE|DECLINED|NOT_APPLICABLE`; - add change locator only after paper-writing actually edits the manuscript; - add run provenance only after an experiment/analysis actually runs; for `DONE` experiment/analysis the artifact path must exist and match `run_provenance.sha256`; - route new references through citation and keep them out until `CONFIRMED`. Reviewer error is not permission to ignore a comment. Clarify with manuscript locator and evidence, or request editor ruling when the disagreement is material. When a reviewer request itself conflicts with venue policy, ethics approval, data rights, consent, budget authorization or editor instructions, do not silently comply. Mark the action as `DECLINED` or `REQUEST_RULING`, bind the policy/ethics evidence, and keep the reviewer wording intact. ### 5. Budget from the selected venue only Run: ```bash python scripts/rebuttal_budget.py \ review-delivery/response-draft.md \ --context review-rebuttal-context.json ``` An `AVAILABLE` current authoritative rule can yield PASS/FAIL. `UNKNOWN`, `UNAVAILABLE`, `STALE`, or a page-only rule stays non-passing and explicit. Never apply an ICLR/CVPR/other venue preset to JORS or vice versa. For every reviewer request for new numbers/experiments, classify it before any run as reanalysis/minimal/adapted/new-data plus feasibility and intended action: ```bash python scripts/experiment_request_gate.py \ --input templates/experiment_request.example.json ``` The template is intentionally `UNKNOWN` and non-passing until current official rules and a real user authorization replace its placeholders. `RUN` requires a VERIFIED current venue rule with `source_type=OFFICIAL`, a real source and ISO check date that allows new results, plus feasible scope, protocol, budget and user authorization. Tier-D new data/human study/ large sweep needs separate authorization. This gate only permits a run; `DONE` still requires run manifest + result artifact hash, and only then may the response use completed tense. ### 6. Check commitment truth Run: ```bash python scripts/check_commitments.py \ --ledger review-delivery/commitment-ledger.json \ --issues review-delivery/issue-matrix.json \ --change-map review-delivery/evidence-change-map.json ``` Repair every critical finding. A valid locator proves only that a claimed change is traceable, not that the scientific response is adequate; perform a human re-review against the actual revised artifact. ### 7. Gate and pause Run: ```bash python scripts/reviewer_classify.py \ --issues review-delivery/issue-matrix.json \ --out reviewer-findings.json python ../light-orchestrator/scripts/run_checkpoint.py \ --file .light/passport.yaml --stage 13 \ --findings reviewer-findings.json --ts --write python ../light-orchestrator/scripts/reroute.py \ --findings reviewer-findings.json --stage 13 \ --passport .light/passport.yaml ``` If the gate fails, present each evidenced option: - 13→3 for rejection-driving novelty; - 13→5 for rejection-driving experiment/design; - 13→8 for rejection-driving writing/presentation; - rebut with evidence; - downgrade the claim or record a limitation; - request editor ruling. Stop for the user's choice. Only then run: ```bash python ../light-orchestrator/scripts/passport.py add-back-edge \ --to <3|5|8> --from 13 --root-cause "" \ --evidence-ptr --file .light/passport.yaml ``` ## Resource ownership | Resource | Responsibility | |---|---| | `review-rebuttal-resource-map.md` | execution order, source/access layers, cross-skill routing | | `references/workflow_contract.md` | schemas, statuses, invariants and artifact semantics | | `references.md` | live source policy, OpenReview/JORS caveats, verification guidance | | `templates/*` | blank author inputs and human-readable response/re-review shapes | | `scripts/review_workflow.py` | canonical validation and package emission | | `scripts/review_response_contract.py` | source-span/reconstruction, atom coverage, response-action evidence, policy/ethics, reviewer-card and self-review gate | | `scripts/fetch_openreview.py` | live API or fixed public snapshot capture; honest unavailable state and duplicate accounting | | `scripts/reviewer_classify.py` | only evidenced rejection-driving stage-13 findings | | `scripts/check_commitments.py` | coverage and PLANNED/DONE/provenance gate | | `scripts/rebuttal_budget.py` | selected-context budget assessment; no venue presets | | `scripts/experiment_request_gate.py` | venue-policy/feasibility/tier/authorization gate; never runs experiments | ## Self-check - [ ] Selected venue/context, user-selection audit fields, source-evidence hash and actual PDF facts agree byte-for-byte. - [ ] Reviewer/editor/meta-review source text is preserved and every atom points to an exact source span with offset and hash. - [ ] Every available review source has timezone-aware `captured_at` and `raw_sha256`; the registry hash matches the exact `raw_text`. - [ ] Addressable reviewer units reconstruct to the expected hash; no unit is omitted or duplicated unless explicitly justified. - [ ] Every issue has type, root cause, strategy, owner and truthful status. - [ ] Every response action declares evidence kind; `DONE` rows have real locators; completed scientific actions have run provenance path + SHA-256 match; proposed citations are citation-confirmed. - [ ] Reviewer competence/conflict cards are recorded but never used to dismiss comments without editor ruling. - [ ] Domain, method, statistics, ethics and cold-reader self-review all pass or have unresolved blockers surfaced before package-ready. - [ ] Current venue response limits are sourced, or remain `UNKNOWN`. - [ ] Commitment coverage passes and no planned action is written as done. - [ ] Every experiment ask has tier/feasibility/action; RUN is venue-verified and user-authorized. - [ ] Critical findings have explicit rejection-driving evidence. - [ ] Reroute advice was shown to the user and no passport edge was added before the user's choice. ## Honest capability boundary Atomization, triage, point-by-point drafting, tone guidance, reviewer priority, budgeting, change locators, promise tracking and venue adaptation are common in peer skills; do not claim them as unique. Light's narrower machine contribution is verified consumption of upstream venue/PDF/claim/evidence/citation contracts, immutable source versus interpretation layers, strict PLANNED/DONE/run-provenance checks, and evidence-gated stage-13 routing that cannot execute without a user decision. Classification and response quality still require expert judgment.