Skill UI

A comprehensive framework for high-stakes negotiation, drawing from tactical empathy and behavioral science. It teaches users how to move beyond logical arguments by understanding the emotional drivers and underlying needs of the counterpart. Techniques include tactical empathy, mirroring, calibrated questioning, and accusation audits. Ideal for salary negotiations, contract discussions, sales objections, and difficult conversations, ensuring you uncover hidden information and build genuine rapport to achieve better outcomes.

Act as a constructive critic and rigorous stress-tester for any idea, proposal, or strategy. This mode systematically challenges underlying assumptions, identifies technical and market edge cases, anticipates diverse stakeholder objections (engineering, leadership, legal), and suggests actionable mitigations. Use it when you need a multi-faceted, robust evaluation to strengthen your plan before committing resources.

A comprehensive guide for authors on drafting a strategic response during the OpenReview cycle. This resource covers how to address reviewer objections, shape the Area Chair's meta-review summary, manage the discussion phase, and decide whether to defend the paper or withdraw for a future revision cycle. Focus on clarity, conciseness, and evidence-based arguments.

A comprehensive pre-submission strategy tool designed for authors submitting to top macroeconomics journals, such as AEJ: Macro. It helps authors anticipate and structure defenses against predictable, highly technical objections (e.g., identification flaws, robustness gaps, lack of breadth) raised by expert referees and co-editors. Use this guide to assess desk-reject risk, plan necessary robustness checks, and pre-emptively strengthen the manuscript before formal submission.

This guide outlines the strategic approach for navigating the fast, decisive peer review process of AER: Insights. It details the single-round, conditional accept/reject model, emphasizing that papers must be submission-ready and objection-proofed upfront, as there is no traditional revise-and-resubmit cycle. Learn how to pre-empt major critiques concerning importance, robustness, and design credibility before submission.

A comprehensive strategy guide for mathematical authors to stress-test their proofs before submission. It outlines how expert academic referees rigorously review work, advising on strengthening weak steps, verifying external theorems, clarifying the core argument, and handling boundary cases to significantly improve the manuscript's rigor and chances of acceptance.

This guide details the rigorous double-blind peer review process used by major art history journals. It helps authors understand what expert referees and editors focus on—such as the originality of the argument, close visual analysis, and documentary evidence—to pre-empt common objections and significantly improve manuscript quality before submission. It emphasizes mastering academic standards and anonymity protocols.

A comprehensive guide for drafting a technical author response (rebuttal) for peer-reviewed academic papers (CAV). It teaches authors how to structure a rebuttal by addressing specific objections related to proof soundness, benchmark fairness, novelty, and scope, using only verifiable evidence, not future promises.

A comprehensive guide for structuring and writing academic rebuttals for major conferences. It details time budgeting, how to address common reviewer objections with concrete evidence, and best practices for maintaining professional credibility throughout the intense review cycle.

A comprehensive guide for drafting author responses to highly technical peer reviews in top-tier theoretical conferences. Learn how to repair perceived gaps, address objections regarding proof correctness, tightness, and novelty-of-technique, while adhering to specific academic policies and structure.

This guide details the rigorous academic peer review process for Comparative Political Studies (CPS). It helps authors preempt reviewer objections by detailing the desk screening criteria, the focus of anonymous peer review, and what comparativists reward or punish. Use this before submission to stress-test your manuscript and ensure your comparative contribution is robust and defensible.

A comprehensive guide for authors addressing the rebuttal window for major NLP/AI conferences (like EACL). It details how to strategically triage reviewer objections, craft responses for both individual reviewers and the action editor's meta-review, plan runnable in-window experiments, and make critical decisions about the paper's future venue.