agentleFS
sergeeeysergeeey/Claude-cod-top-2026/skills/extensions/paper-revision/SKILL.md

paper-revision

Skill9 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Revise papers based on reviewer feedback. Map reviewer concerns to specific sections, apply targeted edits, run additional experiments if needed, and verify improvements. Use after receiving peer review with revision requests.

6 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. 11 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 11

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    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
  1. Common:

    Create a revision plan:

    line 32
  2. Common:

    Additional experiment: Run new experiment, add results

    line 39
  3. Common:

    New analysis: Add ablation, statistical test, or comparison

    line 40
  4. Common:

    Citation: Add missing references

    line 42
  5. Common:

    Read the current section

    line 46
  6. Common:

    If new experiments needed: use experiment-code skill

    line 48
  7. Common:

    If new figures/tables needed: use figure-generation / table-generation skills

    line 49
  8. Common:

    Verify all reviewer concerns are addressed

    line 54
  9. Common:

    Check that revisions don't introduce new issues

    line 55
  10. Common:

    Ensure page count still fits venue requirements

    line 56
  11. Common:

    Keep a copy of the previous version before revising

    line 70

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Paper Revision

Systematically revise papers based on reviewer feedback.

Input

  • $0 — Reviewer comments/feedback
  • $1 — Current paper draft (main.tex or paper directory)

References

  • Revision workflow and prompts: ~/.claude/skills/paper-revision/references/revision-prompts.md

Workflow

Step 1: Parse and Prioritize Concerns

For each reviewer comment:

  1. Extract the specific concern
  2. Classify: major revision, minor revision, question, suggestion
  3. Map to affected paper section(s)
  4. Prioritize: address major concerns first

Step 2: Plan Revisions

Create a revision plan:

Concern → Affected Section → Required Action → New Content/Experiment

Categories of actions:

  • Clarification: Rewrite text for clarity
  • Additional experiment: Run new experiment, add results
  • New analysis: Add ablation, statistical test, or comparison
  • Structural change: Move, merge, or split sections
  • Citation: Add missing references

Step 3: Execute Revisions

For each planned revision:

  1. Read the current section
  2. Apply targeted edits (preserve surrounding structure)
  3. If new experiments needed: use experiment-code skill
  4. If new figures/tables needed: use figure-generation / table-generation skills
  5. Mark changes (use \textcolor{blue}{...} for revised text)

Step 4: Verify Improvements

  • Re-run self-review skill to check if scores improved
  • Verify all reviewer concerns are addressed
  • Check that revisions don't introduce new issues
  • Ensure page count still fits venue requirements

Step 5: Write Revision Summary

Generate a diff summary:

  • List all changes made with section references
  • Note any new experiments, figures, or tables added
  • Cross-reference each change to the reviewer concern it addresses

Rules

  • Address EVERY reviewer concern — do not skip any
  • Preserve paper structure unless structural change is explicitly needed
  • New results must come from actual experiments, not hallucinated
  • Mark all revised text clearly for the reviewers
  • Keep a copy of the previous version before revising
  • Compare new scores vs previous scores after revision

Related Skills

  • Upstream: self-review
  • Downstream: paper-compilation
  • See also: rebuttal-writing

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.