Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/asplos-author-response
Use when drafting an ASPLOS author response inside the short fixed window — triaging reviews into factual errors versus questions versus disagreements, budgeting for the ~800 words reviewers are expected to read, arguing only from evidence already in the submission, and positioning the paper for the Accept / Major Revision / Reject decision.
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 22 without it.
and 14 more in the full report
11 fixed11 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 11 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
When generating the final audit summary for an ASPLOS response that avoided introducing any new benchmark numbers, how must the new-data compliance line be written?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Formats the new-data check audit line as `[New-data check] zero unreviewable numbers introduced: Y/N`. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
The 2027 CFP defines the rebuttal's job narrowly: (1) correct factual errors in the reviews, and (2) answer the questions reviewers posed. There is no hard length cap, but reviewers are not expected to read past 800 words (verified 2026-07-08). Both facts should shape every drafting decision below. The 2027 windows are fixed and short — July 6-9, 2026 for the April cycle (open on this pack's check date) and December 1-4, 2026 for the September cycle.
Sort every review remark into exactly one bucket:
| Bucket | Definition | Response posture |
|---|---|---|
| Factual error | The review misstates what the paper says, measures, or assumes | Correct it, with a section/figure/table pointer — highest priority, CFP-sanctioned |
| Direct question | The reviewer asked for a clarification | Answer in ≤ 3 sentences, citing where the paper already contains the material |
| Evidence dispute | The reviewer doubts a result or baseline | Point to the existing run/ablation that addresses it; concede if none exists |
| Judgment call | "Not novel enough", "fit is marginal" | One calm paragraph max, or zero — rebuttals rarely move taste |
| Revision seed | A fixable gap you agree with | Acknowledge + state the concrete fix; this is you negotiating the Major Revision terms |
The last bucket is ASPLOS-specific leverage: because the decision set includes Major Revision, a response that shows requested work is scoped and feasible in six weeks gives the committee a reason to choose revision over rejection.
Assume only the first 800 words are read; structure so truncation is harmless:
Words 1- 80 Global note: 1-2 sentences of thanks + the single most
important correction, stated flatly with a pointer.
Words 80-560 Numbered items, worst objection first. Format per item:
[R2-Q1] Claim/question -> answer -> evidence pointer (§, Fig, Tab).
Words 560-800 Revision seeds: "If given the opportunity, we will X, Y, Z" —
each one concrete, bounded, and honest about what exists today.
Overflow Optional detail annex, clearly marked; assume unread.
Write pointers, not paraphrases: "§6.4's ablation isolates the hint register (row 3
test cases passed, vs 11 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.