Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/aamas-author-response
Use when drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short response window.
Passed 18 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 22 without it.
and 10 more in the full report
13 fixed5 passed either way3 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 13 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Reviewer 1 noticed a typo in Equation 4 where index $i$ was swapped with $j$, causing confusion about agent rewards. We want to acknowledge this minor typo and clarify the notation for the final version. Draft the rebuttal using the required 5-tag format.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Classifies decision dimension as correctness | Missed | Passed |
| Restricts camera-ready commitment to clarifying notation without asserting unsupported claims | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Use this after AAMAS preliminary reviews are released. Reopen the current OpenReview instructions and the rebuttal-window rules before drafting; response mechanics are cycle-specific and AAMAS reviews and decisions become public afterward.
AAMAS pools game theorists, MARL researchers, and systems-minded reviewers on one paper, so a single rebuttal often answers three different lenses at once.
| Pushback | What it signals | AAMAS-ready fix |
|---|---|---|
| "This is really a single-agent method" | The interaction claim did not land | Point to where the result depends on other agents co-adapting; cite the ablation that freezes them |
| "Which equilibrium do you converge to?" | A game theorist read the solution concept | Name it (Nash / correlated / coarse / no-regret) and cite the proof or convergence plot |
| "Baselines are self-play only" | Opponent set looks weak | Anchor to the held-out opponents or population in the appendix, or concede a camera-ready addition |
| "Seeds and variance are missing" | An empirical reviewer checked rigor | Reference the seeded runs and standard errors; do not promise new experiments as fact |
Reviewer objection: the cooperation result may be an artifact of a single random seed. Reply
test cases passed, vs 6 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.