review-response

Generates structured academic rebuttals by classifying reviewer comments and applying response strategies.

1|Updated Mar 5, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Clay-HHK/claude-skills --skill review-response-clay-hhk
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: review-response
Source: https://github.com/Clay-HHK/claude-skills/tree/main/review-response
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Clay-HHK/claude-skills --skill review-response-clay-hhk

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Responding to peer review comments is time-consuming and stressful, and poorly written rebuttals can sink otherwise strong papers. This Skill systematizes the entire rebuttal workflow, from parsing reviewer comments to producing a polished, professional response document. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Comment Classification: Automatically parses reviewer feedback and categorizes each comment as Major, Minor, Typo, or Misunderstanding to prioritize your effort. - Response Strategy Selection: Recommends the right strategy for each comment—Accept, Defend, Clarify, or Experiment—based on proven patterns from successful ICLR spotlight rebuttals. - Structured Rebuttal Writing: Generates complete rebuttal documents with templates for openings, per-comment responses, and summaries of changes, with conference-specific guidance for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR, and ACL. - Use Case: You receive three reviewer reports for your ICLR submission. Paste them in, and the Skill classifies all comments, suggests a strategy per comment, and drafts a professional point-by-point rebuttal with tone-checked language. ## Quick Start Analyze these reviewer comments and draft a professional rebuttal response for each point.

Frequently Asked Questions about review-response

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I write a rebuttal for reviewer comments?▼

Start by classifying each comment as Major, Minor, Typo, or Misunderstanding, then apply a matching strategy: Accept, Defend, Clarify, or Experiment. Structure each response with a thank-you, your reply, and the specific changes made with section and page references.

How to respond to a reviewer who misunderstood my paper?▼

Use a polite clarification strategy: thank the reviewer, respectfully point to the existing content with exact section and page references, and improve the wording so the point is clearer. Never say the reviewer is wrong; instead apologize for any confusion.

What is the difference between rebuttal strategies for NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR?▼

NeurIPS rebuttals emphasize conceptual novelty, broader impact, and reproducibility. ICML responses focus on theoretical rigor with proofs and formal analysis. ICLR prioritizes thorough additional experiments, honest limitations discussion, and LLM usage disclosure.

Should I promise new experiments in a rebuttal?▼

Only promise experiments you can realistically complete within the rebuttal period. If results are ready, present them immediately with numbers and table references. If an experiment is infeasible, explain the constraint and offer an alternative analysis instead.

What tone mistakes should I avoid in a rebuttal response?▼

Avoid defensive or dismissive phrases like 'the reviewer is wrong' or 'obviously', vague promises without concrete actions, and ignoring any comment. Every response should open with thanks, stay respectful, and cite specific changes with locations.