aistats-author-response — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited aistats-author-response (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Use this after AISTATS reviews are released. Reopen the current OpenReview instructions and author-discussion policy before drafting because response mechanics are cycle-specific.
reproducibility, or fit for AISTATS.
theorem statements, experiments, checklist entries, and code/data descriptions.
repository ownership.
or new supplement unless current instructions explicitly allow it.
author-reviewer discussion was text-only and links were not allowed.
estimates, proofs, or hyperparameters.
| Pushback | What it signals | AISTATS-ready fix |
|---|---|---|
| "Assumption A3 seems strong" | The reviewer traced the proof chain | Point to where A3 is verified, weakened, or shown necessary; never dismiss it as standard without a citation |
| "The experiments violate the theorem conditions" | Theory-experiment mismatch spotted | Identify which conclusions survive misspecification and cite the robustness simulation that shows it |
| "Observed rates do not match the bound" | The reviewer compared empirical slopes against theory | Reference the log-log plot, or explain the constant-dominated regime at the tested sample sizes |
| "Comparison with the classical statistical method is missing" | Statistics-literature gap | Anchor to the appendix comparison, or concede and scope a camera-ready clarification |
Reviewer objection: the minimax claim hides its dependence on dimension d. Reply skeleton:
read for whether the central statistical objection was actually resolved.
argument and anchor it in submitted material only.
once rarely reply twice.
before sending anything.
[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>
[Decision dimension] correctness / novelty / statistical validity / clarity / reproducibility
[Draft response] <AISTATS-ready anonymous text>
[Evidence anchor] <paper/appendix/supplement item>
[Forbidden content removed] <links, identity leaks, new unsupported claims>~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.