domains / families / research / rebuttal

rebuttal

combined

Workflow 4: Submission rebuttal pipeline. Parses external reviews, enforces coverage and grounding, drafts a safe text-only rebuttal under venue limits, and manages follow-up rounds. Use when user says \"rebuttal\", \"reply to reviewers\", \"ICML rebuttal\", \"OpenReview response\", or wants to answer external reviews safely.

When to use

• ICML-style **text-only rebuttal**
• strict **character limits**
• **multiple reviewers**
• **follow-up rounds** after the initial rebuttal
• safe drafting with **no fabrication**, **no overpromise**, and **full issue coverage**
• run new experiments automatically
• generate new theorem claims automatically
• edit or upload a revised PDF

When not to use

• run new experiments automatically
• generate new theorem claims automatically
• edit or upload a revised PDF
• submit to OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP

Skill page

Conflict

The two copies are the same rebuttal pipeline, but the wanshuiyin copy adds material steps and constraints the brycewang copy lacks: a reviewer backend routing convention (Codex vs Manual Review MCP with exact prompt fidelity and no fallback), a VENUE_MODE that changes output shape (single_document vs per_reviewer_thread), a stress-test round policy with a hard cap of 5 and pivotal-reviewer focus, and an HTML rendering gate for the rich draft. The brycewang copy is a shorter, earlier variant with a different reviewer model and a simpler single-round stress test. Crowning one would hide the manual-review routing and rendering steps that are real alternatives in the other copy.