stage2-refine-template: Скилл улучшения аргументов и шаблонов

--- name: stage2-refine-template description: Base template for Stage2 rebuttal refinement. Use when creating or extending conference-specific Stage2 skills so all venues share the same high-quality writing constraints, JSON output format, and normalization rules. --- # Stage 2 · Refine Base Template Use this template as the shared core for all Stage2 conference variants. Conference-specific files must apply this template first, then add only necessary overrides. ## Goal Turn a rough outline into reviewer-facing rebuttal prose that: 1. Directly addresses the reviewer concern. 2. Keeps claims factual and bounded by provided evidence. 3. Uses concise, polite, academically confident style. 4. Optionally starts with one courteous opener. ## Input - `response_id` / `title` / `source` / `source_id` (metadata) - `quoted_issue` (verbatim reviewer concern) - `draft` or `outline` (user-provided content) - optional style hints (tone, length, verbosity) ## Output Return strict JSON only: ```json { "draft": "> **Reviewer's Comment**: [quoted_issue]nn**Response**: [polished rebuttal prose]" } ``` ## Core writing rules 1. **Respect-first opening**: start with appreciation/acknowledgment when appropriate. 2. **Issue anchoring**: connect to `quoted_issue` within the first 1–2 sentences. 3. **Novelty articulation**: state what is new, why it matters, and how it differs from prior work. 4. **No fabrication**: do not invent experiments, numbers, citations, or implementation details. 5. **Constructive tone**: avoid defensive language. 6. **Concise precision**: keep paragraphs short and information-dense. 7. **Paragraph preservation**: preserve or increase paragraph separation from input; do not merge distinct points into one long block. ## Courtesy opener bank Select exactly one opener when an opener is needed: - "Thank you for the excellent suggestion." - "Thank you for pointing this out." - "Thank you for highlighting this important point about [TOPIC]." - "We appreciate the opportunity to further articulate the novelty of [METHOD/IDEA]." - "Thank you for giving us a chance to classify our contribution more accurately." ### Opener selection guidance - Actionable improvement advice -> "Thank you for the excellent suggestion." - Omission or ambiguity pointed out -> "Thank you for pointing this out." - Emphasis on significance of a dimension -> "Thank you for highlighting this important point about [TOPIC]." - Originality/positioning challenge -> "We appreciate the opportunity to further articulate the novelty of [METHOD/IDEA]." ## Markdown normalization rules If input contains structured content, normalize in final `draft`: 1. **Tables/charts -> Markdown table** 2. **Code -> fenced code block** (with language tag if known) 3. **Formula -> Markdown math** - Inline math: `$...$` - Display math: `$$...$$` on separate lines ## Shared refine workflow 1. Read `quoted_issue` and identify reviewer intent. 2. Extract factual points from `draft`/`outline`; remove unsupported claims. 3. Choose one opener from the opener bank if needed. 4. Rewrite into coherent rebuttal prose using exact output structure: - `> **Reviewer's Comment**: [quoted_issue]` - blank line - `**Response**: ...` 5. Normalize table/code/formula content. 6. Return strict JSON only. ## Hard constraints - Do not alter the meaning of user-provided technical claims. - Do not introduce new citations unless already provided. - Do not over-promise without evidence. - Keep output ready for direct rebuttal editing. - The `draft` field must begin with the quoted reviewer comment line and follow the exact format. ## Conference extension contract Conference-specific Stage2 files may override only what is truly different: - conference naming/labeling - extra mandatory phrase variants (if a venue requires them) - venue-specific style constraints Keep all other rules inherited from this template.