rebuttal-baseline ยท diff
git:20260921.83e1f0d to git:20260924.8f1c5c6
42 added, 9 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: rebuttal-baseline
description: Build and confirm the complete paper, review, constraint, concern, and reviewer-card baseline before rebuttal generation.
---
<!-- Adapted from YoujunZhao/AutoRebuttal; see /app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/ATTRIBUTION.md. -->
# Rebuttal Baseline
Read these shared references completely before acting:
- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/input-contract.md`
- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/reviewer-analysis.md`
+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/reviewer-model.md`
+ - `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/rebuttal-playbook.md`
- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/evidence-policy.md`
- `/app/skills/autorebuttal-shared/references/artifact-contracts.md`
This author-facing phase contains two internal steps.
## Step 1: Intake
- Read the paper entry point, follow relevant includes, and read every report in
- the authoritative review index. Normalize the paper summary, reviewer IDs,
- venue, response mode, output format, character limits, author notes, forbidden
- claims, and unresolved questions. Unknown limits stay null.
+ Read the paper entry point and follow relevant includes. Then collect reviews
+ from the available sources:
+ 1. Read every report in the review index when it is non-empty.
+ 2. Read any review text the author pasted into the conversation, including
+ separately labeled reports in one message.
+ Preserve each distinct conversation-only report in the corresponding
+ `reviewer_sources` item as `review_markdown`, organized for display with
+ Markdown headings and lists. Retain the supplied details and do not invent
+ absent fields. The right-hand reviewer panel displays this Markdown after
+ baseline publication.
+ 3. Merge matching reports from these sources without dropping reviewer-specific
+ details. A forum URL alone is not review text; ask the author to paste the
+ report or enter it in the right-hand review panel.
+ 4. If neither source contains a review, ask the author to paste one into the
+ conversation or enter it in the review panel.
+
+ Assign one stable reviewer UUID per distinct report. Use the indexed UUID for
+ saved reviews; for a conversation-only report, create a UUID and retain it in
+ the published baseline. Preserve a human-readable reviewer label separately.
+ Do not claim to have read a linked forum unless its review text was supplied.
+
+ Normalize the paper summary, stable reviewer UUIDs and display labels, venue,
+ response mode, output format, author notes, forbidden claims, and unresolved
+ questions.
+
## Step 2: Review analysis
Split every substantive report into atomic `W` weaknesses, `Q` questions, and
`M` minor points. Record stable concern IDs, severity, likely answer source,
response move, and auditable source references. Build exactly one reviewer card
- per indexed report and assign every concern to exactly one matching card.
+ per indexed report and assign every concern to exactly one matching card. Use
+ the index `reviewer_id` UUID everywhere; never substitute or derive it from the
+ human-readable `display_label`.
- Present the compact baseline to the author when a material ambiguity or author
- decision remains. Do not draft rebuttal prose, choose a final strategy, edit
- paper files, or invent venue policy. Set `ready_for_generation` false until
- blocking questions are resolved.
+ Present the compact baseline to the author. Do not draft rebuttal prose, choose
+ a final strategy, edit paper files, or invent venue policy. Missing venue/year,
+ the default response mode or output format, absent numeric limits, and evidence
+ that will require an author placeholder are not generation blockers. Record
+ such items as assumptions, warnings, or open questions and continue.
+
+ Only set `ready_for_generation` false when the source material is unusable for
+ an evidence-grounded response: the paper has no substantive readable content,
+ neither the review index nor the conversation supplies a review,
+ or none of the collected reviews contains a substantive concern. In that case,
+ identify the exact missing source and required author action. Otherwise publish
+ the baseline with `ready_for_generation` true.
Publish the complete Baseline phase contract exactly once with
`publish_stage_result` and idempotency key `rebuttal-baseline-v1`.