Duties of a shepherd in a CS conference I reviewed a paper, which was then accepted as "presentation-only" with a possibility to submit a revised version to be re-reviewed. Upon acceptance, I was asked to be a shepherd for the paper. 


What are the typical duties of a shepherd?
Which duties might seem shepherd's duties, but, in fact, are not?
Does the shepherd get any academic credit?
Do paper authors get to know the shepherd's name?


EDIT: This question is partially (i.e., not fully) covered by Thanking a &quot;shepherd&quot; in acknowledgments. Here, we ask for a more detailed, canonical description. In particular, feel free to add more items to this question by means of editing.
in my experience, the shepherd is supposed to produce constructive feedback, and basically setting a shepherd on a paper tells the authors they need to keep working on the paper for as long as possible. Don't worry about it too much, you're not meant to rewrite their paper. Ask the person that set you up to be shepherd whether the authors will know you or not.
You might get mentionned, same as reviewers in the proceeedings, but think of it more as building experience and goodwill in your research network.