| name | neurips-author-response |
| description | Use when drafting or triaging NeurIPS OpenReview author responses, rebuttals, and discussion-period replies under the current year's response mechanics and double-blind constraints. |
NeurIPS Author Response
Use this skill after reviews are released. The goal is to clarify, correct misunderstandings, and
move reviewers and ACs toward a technically accurate decision without implying a revised paper has
replaced the submitted version.
2026 response mechanics to re-check
The 2026 handbook describes a three-phase response/discussion process: initial author response,
author-reviewer-AC discussion, then reviewer/AC discussion. It also states that authors respond
through OpenReview rebuttal buttons, with a per-review 10,000-character limit, no file uploads, no
identity-revealing content, and no links except an anonymized code link to the AC in an Official
Comment when reviewers ask for code. Reopen the current handbook before using these limits.
Response triage
- Start from decision leverage, not reviewer score. Identify the few objections that ACs can use to
justify rejection: correctness, missing baseline, unclear novelty, weak significance, anonymity,
ethics, or reproducibility.
- Separate misunderstandings from real gaps. Correct the former directly; acknowledge the latter and
explain what existing evidence in the original submission supports.
- Do not promise a new paper. New results can clarify, but the original submission remains the basis
for the recommendation.
- Keep every response anonymous and link-free unless the current official policy gives an explicit
exception.
Drafting pattern
- Thank reviewers briefly, then state the central clarification.
- Answer the highest-leverage technical objection first.
- Point to exact sections, equations, figures, appendix items, or checklist answers.
- If adding a small result, state that it supports an existing claim and can be incorporated if
accepted.
- Close with the concrete change that would appear in camera-ready, not a broad promise.
Pitfalls
- Arguing with tone instead of evidence.
- Spending space on low-confidence praise or score complaints.
- Uploading files, posting links, or identifying authors.
- Treating the response as a full revision.
- Ignoring the meta-review, AC questions, or reviewer-author professional obligations.
Output format
[Response priority] <reviewer/AC issue to address first>
[Decision leverage] High / Medium / Low
[Draft response] <anonymous OpenReview-ready text>
[Evidence cited] <paper section / appendix / checklist item>
[Do not say] <phrases or promises to avoid>
