Triage Reviews

Triage Reviews

Convert raw reviewer text into a structured decision artifact: every concern isolated, classified (misunderstanding / real flaw / requested experiment / clarification / disagreement), scored severity x effort, and ordered into a response plan that fits the venue's rebuttal budget. This is the planning step that runs between "reviews arrived" and write-rebuttal — rebuttals written straight from raw reviews bury the score-moving points under typo acknowledgments.

When to use

• "My NeurIPS/ICML/SIGSPATIAL/... reviews are in — help me respond"
• "Triage these reviews" / "what do I address first in my rebuttal?"
• "Reviewer 2 says X but the paper already covers it — how do I handle this?"
• Reviews pasted from OpenReview, EasyChair, CMT, HotCRP, PCS, or a notification email
• Always before write-rebuttal; also useful for journal revise-and-resubmit responses

Inputs

1. Raw review text in a file (e.g. reviews.txt): the user pastes or exports it from the submission system. Per-platform copy-out instructions and gotchas: references/platform-formats.md.
2. Venue profile (optional but recommended): venues/conferences/<venue>-<year>.yml (schema in venues/schema.yml) — supplies review.rebuttal_format, review.rebuttal_limit, and deadlines.rebuttal_end. If missing, run parse-cfp first or proceed platform-generic.
3. The submitted paper (.tex/PDF, optional): needed to verify misunderstanding claims and fill evidence anchors.

Process

1. Stage the raw text — confidentially. Have the user save the reviews to a local file outside any git repository (or add it to .gitignore). Review text is confidential at most venues: process it transiently and never commit it.

2. Parse deterministically. Run:

   Copy code
   python3 scripts/parse_reviews.py reviews.txt -o triage.json
   

   Auto-detects the platform; force with --format openreview|easychair|cmt|hotcrp and catch terse one-liners with --min-words 3 if needed. Output is a JSON skeleton: reviewers, scores, canonical sections, and per-concern entries (R1.1, R1.2, ...) with classification/severity/effort left null. Exit codes: 0 ok, 1 nothing detected, 2 bad input.

3. Verify the parse against the raw text. Confirm the reviewer count, that every weakness/question in the raw text appears as a concern, and that scores were captured. If a reviewer or concern was missed, fix the text (insert a Review N banner line) and re-run, or add the concern to the JSON by hand — never silently drop a reviewer point. Recovery steps: references/platform-formats.md, last section.

4. Resolve the venue's rebuttal mechanics — then re-verify them live. Read review.rebuttal_format, review.rebuttal_limit, and deadlines.rebuttal_end from the venue profile. Profiles are a starting point, never ground truth: re-verify the rebuttal format, the character/page limit, whether new experimental results are allowed, and the deadline against the live cfp_url (and the venue's author guidelines) before the user relies on them. State what was verified and when. If rebuttal_format: none, say so — triage still guides the camera-ready revision or the next submission.

5. Classify every concern. Fill classification, severity, effort, evidence_anchor, and a one-line response_strategy for each concern in triage.json, applying the decision tree and definitions in references/triage-rubric.md. Rules that bind:

   • Claim misunderstanding only after locating the refuting text in the actual paper — cite section/line in evidence_anchor.
   • Severity measures threat to acceptance, not reviewer tone; concerns raised by 2+ reviewers escalate one level.
   • Effort measures cost to respond within the rebuttal window, not cost to fix the paper.
   • Walk the user through any concern where you are uncertain; the user knows the paper.

6. Render the matrix. Run:

   Copy code
   python3 scripts/build_matrix.py triage.json --budget <limit> --budget-unit chars
   

   with the budget from the verified rebuttal limit (e.g. --budget 10000 --budget-unit chars for NeurIPS-style OpenReview; --budget 800 --budget-unit words for a CVPR one-page PDF; omit --budget for journal R&R). The script validates the enums (exit 1 with a list of unfilled concerns until classification is complete), computes priority scores and must/should/brief bands, and emits the reviewer summary, severity x effort grid, concern matrix, response plan, and budget allocation (--format json for machine-readable output).

7. Present and hand off. Walk the user through the must-address band first, flag any requested experiment that cannot finish before rebuttal_end, and confirm the strategy lines. Then hand the matrix to write-rebuttal for drafting in the venue's format. If new experiments will be run, remind the user to check the venue's policy on new results in rebuttals (step 4) before promising them.

Output

• triage.json — structured, classified concern data (machine-readable, reusable by write-rebuttal).
• A triage matrix report (markdown, via build_matrix.py): per-reviewer summary with scores, severity x effort grid, priority-ordered concern matrix, must/should/brief response plan, and per-concern budget allocations.

Both stay local; neither should ever contain text the user needs to keep out of a repo — treat them as confidential working files.

Adapt to your discipline

The parser targets CS submission systems. For journal-centric fields, paste ScholarOne/Editorial Manager reviewer comments, add Reviewer #N banner lines, and parse with --format cmt; swap the budget step for an unbounded response-letter plan. The rubric (misunderstanding / real flaw / requested experiment) is discipline-agnostic.

Guardrails

• Review text is confidential: process transiently, never commit it, never quote it in public artifacts (issues, examples, showcase files).
• Never fabricate or soften reviewer text — concerns in the matrix must be traceable to the raw reviews; quote at most a sentence at a time.
• Never claim misunderstanding without a verified anchor in the paper; honesty rules in references/triage-rubric.md are binding.
• Any citation added while planning responses goes through verify-citations before it reaches a rebuttal.
• Re-verify rebuttal format, limits, and deadline against the live cfp_url before the user relies on them (step 4 is not optional).
• Never submit a response to any system on the user's behalf; stop at the plan (and at the draft, in write-rebuttal).