Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cvpr-author-response
Use when planning or drafting the CVPR one-page rebuttal after reviews are released, covering the official rebuttal template, the ban on new contributions and external links, triaging multiple reviews at 16k-submission scale, choosing which numbers fit in one page, and writing for the AC who reads the discussion.
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 7 of 22 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
12 fixed7 passed either way3 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 12 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Reviewer 2 asked us to run a 3-week ablation study on a 100M parameter model variant. We plan to decline this request. How many lines of text should we allocate in our 1-page rebuttal budget to explain why this request is declined?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Recommends keeping the line budget for declining out-of-scope requests concise. | Passed | Passed |
| Allocates approximately 2 to 3 lines for declining an out-of-scope request. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Use this when CVPR reviews land. In the 2026 cycle, reviews reached authors on January 22 and the rebuttal closed January 29, with reviewer–AC discussion running January 30 – February 5 and decisions on February 20. One week, one page — the format is the strategy.
The rebuttal is an optional, single-page PDF built on the rebuttal.tex template in
the official author kit. Two rules from the Author Guidelines carry teeth:
That last clause surprises people arriving from venues with revision uploads: at CVPR you cannot attach anything. If a number matters, it goes in the page as a sentence or a five-row table.
With ~16,000 papers in the 2026 pool, your reviewers wrote many reviews and your AC is tracking dozens of papers. The rebuttal's real reader is the AC during the discussion window. Triage accordingly:
| Review signal | Rebuttal move | Budget |
|---|---|---|
| Factual error ("no ablation on X" when Table 4 has it) | Quote the reviewer, cite the exact table/line, one sentence | 2–3 lines each |
| Misread contribution / scope | Restate the claim in one crisp sentence, point to where the paper says it | 4–6 lines |
| Requested clarification (protocol, metric, split) | Answer directly; give the number | 3–5 lines |
| Requested small experiment | Run it if it fits the week; report as a mini-table | 6–10 lines |
| Demand for a full new benchmark or method variant | Decline politely; explain why out of scope for a rebuttal | 2–3 lines |
| Subjective "not novel enough" | Delta-list against the 2–3 closest citations, no adjectives | 4–6 lines |
Answer every reviewer, but not every sentence of every reviewer. Ignoring one review
test cases passed, vs 7 / 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.