--- name: runtsang-rebuttal-self-review 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." metadata: decimalai-skill-id: "a003a04a-f915-4cb0-9a3e-44e5fa00131d" decimalai-version-id: "6288869e-17d0-4620-b810-f49645ec9ccf" decimalai-version: "1" decimalai-body-sha256: "c1f84fbc08117803c7cc243e49cd36c20a6f04180828e56354fa35789d0d2200" decimalai-name: "runtsang/rebuttal-self-review" decimalai-format: "1" decimalai-invocation: "model" decimalai-category: "documentation" decimalai-source: "https://app.decimal.ai/s/runtsang-rebuttal-self-review@1/SKILL.md" --- # Rebuttal Self-Review > **RebuttalStudio Utility — Pre-Submission Check** > Run this skill after Stage 3 or Stage 5 document generation, before copying the final text into OpenReview or the submission portal. It catches structural gaps, tone issues, and factual risks that stage-specific skills may have missed. A systematic quality assurance checklist tailored for academic conference rebuttals (ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and similar venues). --- ## Overview Unlike a paper, a rebuttal has a strict deadline, tight word limits, and must directly engage with specific reviewer concerns. This review process is optimized for those constraints: fast, targeted, and submission-ready focused. **Recommended timing:** - After Stage 3 compilation (before first-round submission) - After Stage 5 final remarks (before final remarks submission) - After each multi-round Stage 4 response (optional but recommended) --- ## Review Checklist ### 1. Coverage — Did You Address Everything? The most common rebuttal failure is missing a reviewer concern. ``` Coverage Check: - [ ] Count the total issues in Stage 1 breakdown for each reviewer - [ ] Confirm each issue appears in the Stage 3 document - [ ] For multi-round reviewers, confirm each follow-up was answered - [ ] No reviewer's comment was silently dropped - [ ] If an issue was not addressed, a reason is stated ("We will address this in the revision") ``` ### 2. Tone — Is It Collaborative, Not Defensive? ``` Tone Check: - [ ] Opening of each reviewer section thanks the reviewer - [ ] No response uses defensive phrases ("The reviewer is wrong", "This criticism is unfounded") - [ ] Disagreements are framed as clarifications ("We believe this may be due to…") - [ ] Commitments are grounded ("We will add X in Section Y" not "We might consider…") - [ ] No sarcasm or frustration, even with persistent or unfair reviews ``` ### 3. Factual Accuracy — No Fabrication ``` Factual Check: - [ ] All cited results match the actual paper numbers - [ ] No experiment is claimed that was not actually run - [ ] No citation is mentioned that has not been verified (see citation-verification skill) - [ ] "Changes made" pointers (section/table/figure numbers) are accurate - [ ] No comparison results were invented to satisfy a reviewer ``` ### 4. Structure — Is It Easy to Navigate? Conference rebuttals are read quickly. Structure affects perceived quality. ``` Structure Check: - [ ] Each reviewer has a clearly labeled section - [ ] Each concern has a visible label matching the Stage 1 breakdown title - [ ] Quoted reviewer text appears before each response (using the Stage 2 format) - [ ] The document reads in a logical order: per-reviewer, then per-issue - [ ] For Stage 5: section headers (Acknowledgments / Key Strengths / Key Concerns / Commitment) are present ``` ### 5. Clarity — Would a Tired Reviewer Understand It? ``` Clarity Check: - [ ] Each response states its conclusion in the first sentence - [ ] Technical claims are self-contained (no unexplained jargon for new terms) - [ ] Tables are labeled and readable without surrounding text - [ ] Formulas use consistent notation with the paper - [ ] No response is longer than needed (trim to the minimum convincing length) ``` ### 6. Writing Quality — Does It Sound Human-Authored? ``` Writing Check: - [ ] No AI filler phrases ("It is worth noting that…", "Furthermore…" as opener) - [ ] Sentence lengths are varied - [ ] Claims are specific to this paper (not generic statements) - [ ] If in doubt, apply writing-anti-ai skill to the full document ``` --- ## Review Process Follow these steps for a systematic pass: **Pass 1 — Coverage scan (5 min)** > Count all Stage 1 atomic issues. Open the Stage 3 document. Check off each issue. **Pass 2 — Tone pass (10 min)** > Read only the opening sentence of each response. Does each one feel collaborative? Fix any that don't. **Pass 3 — Factual spot-check (10 min)** > Pick 3–5 specific claims (percentages, section numbers, citation names). Verify them against the paper. **Pass 4 — Structure skim (5 min)** > Can you navigate from one reviewer to another, and one issue to another, in 30 seconds? If not, improve headings. **Pass 5 — Final read-aloud (optional)** > Read the document aloud or use text-to-speech. Awkward phrases become obvious when heard. --- ## Common Rebuttal Errors | Error Type | Description | How to Fix | |-----------|-------------|-----------| | Silent skip | An issue has no response | Add even a one-sentence placeholder | | Over-promising | "We will completely redesign Section 4" | Scope it: "We will add a clarifying paragraph to Section 4" | | Unverified citation | Citing a paper you haven't confirmed exists | Apply citation-verification skill | | Wrong pointer | "See Table 3" but the data is in Table 2 | Verify all section/figure/table references | | Defensive pivot | Reframing the concern without addressing it | Address it directly first, then provide context | | Invisible result | "We ran this experiment" with no numbers | Include the result or say "results will appear in the revision" | --- ## After the Review Once all checks pass: 1. **For Stage 3**: Copy the compiled document to the submission portal. Respect word/character limits. 2. **For Stage 5**: Copy the final remarks to the final remarks box. 3. **Keep a local copy**: The project.json autosaves, but export a Markdown backup before submitting. --- *Adapted from Claude Scholar's `paper-self-review` skill for the rebuttal context. Original: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar/blob/main/skills/paper-self-review/SKILL.md*