ijcai-author-response — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ijcai-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 IJCAI reviews are released. Reopen the current Author's Response FAQ and response template before drafting; rebuttal rules are cycle-specific.
rejection, or when an unethical review needs confidential escalation.
disagreement without a decision-relevant correction.
page using the official response template.
examples are acceptable only when they explain material already in the submission.
PC reviewers.
requests rather than guessing.
The one-page budget forces ruthless selection. The response is not a dialogue, and phase-1 summary-reject papers usually get no response, so reserve the page for decision-changing items.
| Reviewer point | Respond? | How |
|---|---|---|
| Pressing question that could flip the score | Yes | Point to the submitted location |
| Factual error driving rejection | Yes | Correct precisely; anchor to section/table/theorem |
| "Add experiment X" | No new results | Promise a camera-ready note or cite existing evidence |
| Tone, score, broad disagreement | No | Do not spend budget relitigating |
| Suspected unethical review | Confidential box | Not the public PDF |
A planning paper draws one strong review and one that wrongly claims the optimality proof assumes unit costs. That misreading could drive rejection, so it earns space: cite the assumption already stated in the submitted theorem and point to the appendix proof, without a new result. A second reviewer asks for an extra benchmark family; since no new experiments may be added, promise a camera-ready note and reference the closest existing table. The complaint about presentation tone gets no words.
supports, since new evidence is disallowed.
[Response budget] <pages used / current limit>
[Eligible reason] pressing question / factual error / unethical review
[Draft response] <IJCAI-ready text>
[Evidence anchor] <submitted location>
[Do-not-include list] <new results, code links, broad complaints, identity leaks>~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.