git:20260921.83e1f0d to git:20260924.8f1c5c6

26 added, 11 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: autorebuttal

description: Automatically plan, draft, and compliance-check a complete evidence-grounded rebuttal from a confirmed baseline.

---

# AutoRebuttal

Read these shared references completely before acting:

- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/input-contract.md`

- - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/strategy-and-budget.md`

+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/strategy-and-format.md`

- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/drafting-and-compliance.md`

+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/rebuttal-playbook.md`

+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/reviewer-model.md`

+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/initial-rebuttal-style.md`

+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/human-rebuttal-style.md`

+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/venue-policies.md`

- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/evidence-policy.md`

- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/artifact-contracts.md`

+ If the baseline lacks details needed for a reply, read the saved review files

+ or ask the author to paste the relevant original passage into the conversation.

+ Do not treat an OpenReview link alone as evidence of the review's contents.

Read the confirmed intake and analysis from the rebuttal context before doing

any generation. This author-facing phase contains three internal steps that

must run in order without asking the author to type “continue.”

## Step 1: Response strategy

Resolve shared issues, priority reviewers, response moves, output structure,

- and a reviewer-complete character budget. The format and limits must match the

- confirmed baseline. Keep a safety margin and never invent venue policy.

+ and a reviewer-complete strategy. Decide whether shared concerns belong in one

+ global response or in reviewer-specific blocks. Keep the stable reviewer UUIDs

+ from the confirmed baseline; display labels are presentation only.

## Step 2: Drafting

- Write concise reviewer-addressed entries covering every analyzed concern

- exactly once across the entry set. Ground factual claims in the paper or

- explicit author evidence. Use visible `[AUTHOR: ...]` placeholders when only

- the author can provide a result or decision.

+ Write concise responses covering every analyzed concern exactly once across

+ the global response and reviewer-specific entries. Ground factual claims in

+ the paper or explicit author evidence and attach auditable source references.

+ Use visible `[AUTHOR: ...]` placeholders when only the author can provide a

+ result or decision.

## Step 3: Compliance review

- Audit and refine the full draft for concern coverage, reviewer consistency,

- evidence integrity, response-character limits, and submission readiness. Fix

- non-blocking writing problems directly. Keep unresolved evidence visible and

- set `ready_for_submission` false when author action remains.

+ Audit and refine the full draft for concern coverage, reviewer identity,

+ global/shared consistency, evidence integrity, and submission readiness. Fix

+ non-blocking writing problems directly. Assemble the exact final submission in

+ `rendered_text`; it must agree with the final global response and entries. Keep

+ unresolved evidence visible and set `ready_for_submission` false when author

+ action remains. Publish concise author-facing guidance for those unresolved

+ items: identify what is missing, why it matters, and a practical next step.

+ Do not expose the internal compliance checklist as user guidance.

Publish the complete AutoRebuttal phase contract exactly once with

`publish_stage_result` and idempotency key `autorebuttal-v1`.