reviewer-response
Skill3 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when responding to paper reviews, rebuttal comments, or revision requests and you need a structured issue list, action plan, and concise response draft.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- pradyumnasagar/open-research-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Xuzhen-Li/literature-review-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- fortmort/jeltztheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- crfldrxyz/AuthorOps-Skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 1, 2026
- MorrisLu-Taipei/GenAI-Consulting-Methodology-Toolkittheir own version, first seen Jun 21, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- MorrisLu-Taipei/GenAI-Consulting-Methodology-Toolkit★ 16same name
- pradyumnasagar/open-research-skills★ 8same name
- fortmort/jeltz★ 4same name
- Xuzhen-Li/literature-review-skills★ 2same name
- crfldrxyz/AuthorOps-Skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository43 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-codingSkill
- benchmark-designSkill
- citation-managementSkill
- code-reproductionSkill
- code-to-paperSkill
- daskSkill
- experiment-trackingSkill
- exploratory-data-analysisSkill
- get-available-resourcesSkill
- github-release-prepSkill
- latex-postersSkill
- literature-reviewSkill
- markdown-mermaid-writingSkill
- markitdownSkill
- matplotlibSkill
- modalSkill
- networkxSkill
- paper-to-codeSkill
- peer-reviewSkill
- plotlySkill
- polarsSkill
- pytorch-lightningSkill
- pyzoteroSkill
- repo-cleanupSkill
- research-planningSkill
- scholar-evaluationSkill
- scientific-critical-thinkingSkill
- scientific-schematicsSkill
- scientific-slidesSkill
- scientific-visualizationSkill
- scientific-writingSkill
- scikit-learnSkill
- seabornSkill
- shapSkill
- stable-baselines3Skill
- statistical-analysisSkill
- statsmodelsSkill
- sympySkill
- torch-geometricSkill
- transformersSkill
- umap-learnSkill
- vaexSkill
- venue-templatesSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 26
must-fix versus clarify-only breakdown
- Distinctive: line 37
Check that every promise in the response has a real execution path.
- Distinctive: line 41
do not answer emotionally or argue without evidence
- Distinctive: line 42
do not promise experiments you cannot realistically complete
- Distinctive: line 44
keep each response aligned with one reviewer concern at a time
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Purpose
Turn reviewer comments into a controlled rebuttal or revision workflow.
When To Use
- writing a rebuttal after conference or journal review
- planning a response-to-reviewers letter for revision
- triaging many comments across several reviewers
- deciding which comments require experiments, clarifications, or text edits
Inputs
- reviewer comments or decision letter
- current manuscript state and change constraints
- available evidence, new analyses, or planned revisions
Outputs
- issue matrix grouped by reviewer and theme
- must-fix versus clarify-only breakdown
- response draft with concise claim-evidence-action structure
- revision checklist mapped back to comments
- list of comments that cannot be fully addressed and why
Workflow
- Normalize comments into atomic issues instead of long paragraphs.
- Classify each issue as correction, clarification, experiment, scope, or disagreement.
- Map each issue to evidence and to the concrete manuscript change required.
- Draft responses that are respectful, specific, and non-defensive.
- Check that every promise in the response has a real execution path.
Constraints
- do not answer emotionally or argue without evidence
- do not promise experiments you cannot realistically complete
- distinguish completed changes from planned future work
- keep each response aligned with one reviewer concern at a time
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.