Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cikm-author-response
Use when preparing author-side communication around CIKM reviews — drafting for a response window if the cycle offers one (unconfirmed for 2026), writing camera-ready revision notes that answer reviewer concerns, handling post-decision chair correspondence, and converting rejection reviews into a resubmission brief.
Passed 21 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 23 without it.
and 12 more in the full report
10 fixed11 passed either way2 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 10 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We just received acceptance for our CIKM paper and need to organize our camera-ready preparation notes. Reviewer 1 wants clearer descriptions of our optimization pipeline, while Reviewer 2 noted that our streaming graph evaluation is limited to static datasets. Please construct a planning breakdown that identifies the overall situation category, the lead point to address for each reviewer, evidence citations in our existing text, one-line scoped limitation concessions, and the target deadline gate.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The output classifies the writing situation as [Situation] camera-ready note. | Missed | Passed |
| The output includes the required block tags [Per-reviewer leads], [Evidence anchors], [Concessions], and [Deliverable deadline]. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
CIKM's response mechanics are genuinely cycle-dependent: no official statement confirming or denying a 2026 rebuttal phase could be retrieved (source map, 2026-07-08, 待核实). This skill therefore covers all four author-side writing situations around CIKM reviews, with the no-window case treated as the default — because when there is no rebuttal, the reply to reviewers gets written anyway, just in different documents.
| Situation | The document you actually write | Governing constraint |
|---|---|---|
| A response window opens | Anonymous reply inside EasyChair | Announced word/format rules; anonymity persists |
| No window, paper accepted | Camera-ready revision note | Address concerns without exceeding accepted scope |
| No window, paper rejected | Resubmission brief for the next venue | Honest triage, no venue-blaming |
| Factual process error | Confidential note to PC chairs | Facts only; never argue merit this way |
CIKM reviews arrive from up to three community lanes (cikm-review-process), so a
good reply is organized by reviewer, not by theme — each lane's reviewer should find
their own objection answered in their own vocabulary:
Reviewer: "Complexity analysis suggests quadratic blow-up on dense graphs; the experiments avoid this regime."
test cases passed, vs 11 / 23 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.