Review Response

• You have received reviewer comments from a conference or journal (e.g., ICLR, NeurIPS, ACL) and need to write a formal rebuttal.
• You want to systematically classify reviewer comments by type (Major/Minor/Typo/Misunderstanding) before deciding how to respond to each.
• You need help developing a response strategy — knowing when to accept a critique, defend your position, clarify a misunderstanding, or run an additional experiment.
• You want to ensure your rebuttal is complete, professionally toned, and addresses every reviewer point without missing anything.

• You are not responding to formal peer review comments — this skill is purpose-built for academic rebuttal workflows and is not a general writing or editing tool.
• Your reviewers have already accepted the paper and you only need to make minor editorial revisions with no rebuttal required.

Automatically parses reviewer comments and classifies each one into categories such as Major, Minor, Typo, or Misunderstanding. This gives you a clear map of what needs the most attention before writing a single word of response.

For each classified comment, the skill recommends a tailored response strategy — Accept, Defend, Clarify, or propose an additional Experiment. Strategies are grounded in lessons extracted from successful ICLR Spotlight paper rebuttals.

Generates a complete, structured rebuttal document that addresses every reviewer point in a consistent format. Templates and examples from references/rebuttal-templates.md inform the output structure.

Reviews and refines the tone of each response to ensure it remains professional, respectful, and evidence-based throughout — avoiding common pitfalls like defensiveness or dismissiveness.

When installed alongside the ml-paper-writing skill, this skill reads from paper-miner-writing-memory.md to apply mined phrasing patterns, venue-specific signals, and rhetorical structure improvements to your rebuttal.

Enforces the core principle that every reviewer comment receives a response supported by reasoning or evidence — including proactive discussion of ethical considerations when the research topic warrants it.

A researcher receives mixed reviews for a submitted paper — some reviewers praise novelty while others question experimental setup. The skill classifies each comment, recommends adding ablation studies for experimental concerns, and drafts a venue-aware rebuttal that acknowledges strengths before addressing criticism.

After a major revision request from a journal editor, a researcher needs a formal response letter that addresses every reviewer point. The skill structures the document, suggests where to move technical details to an appendix, and ensures tone is consistently professional.

One or more reviewers appear to have misread a core contribution. The skill flags these as Misunderstanding-type comments and generates clear, polite clarification responses with step-by-step explanations tailored to readers from different backgrounds.

A paper on privacy or security receives reviewer concerns about ethical implications. The skill proactively surfaces the need to address ethical considerations in the rebuttal, even for points reviewers raised only implicitly.