// Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.
Use this by default for non-trivial multi-step work that needs persistent planning, progress tracking, or durable notes on disk. Trigger when a task will likely span multiple tool calls, research steps, verification loops, or enough context that the plan should not live only in transient chat memory.
This skill should be used when the user asks for efficient communication, task reports, file-operation summaries, research discussion, study-note synthesis, planning, writing feedback, or responses that need conclusion-first structure, concrete evidence, risk disclosure, and useful next steps.
Write publication-ready ML/AI papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM. Use when drafting papers from research repos, conducting literature reviews, finding related work, verifying citations, or preparing camera-ready submissions. Includes LaTeX templates, citation verification workflows, and paper discovery/evaluation criteria.
This skill provides reference guidance for citation verification in academic writing. Use when the user asks about "citation verification best practices", "how to verify references", "preventing fake citations", or needs guidance on citation accuracy. This skill supports ml-paper-writing by providing detailed verification principles and common error patterns.
Use this skill for Obsidian-native formatting and derived artifacts such as Markdown formatting, wikilinks, registry tables, canvas files, optional Bases, CLI operations, and link repair. This skill does not decide knowledge routing.
Use this skill for project-scoped literature review built on Sources/Papers, with synthesis landing in Knowledge, writing handoff in Writing, and the default literature canvas under Maps/literature.canvas.
| name | review-response |
| description | Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates. |
| tags | ["Research","Academic","Rebuttal","Paper Writing"] |
| version | 0.1.0 |
A systematic review response workflow that helps researchers efficiently and professionally reply to reviewer comments.
Receive reviewer comments -> Parse and classify -> Develop strategy -> Write responses -> Tone check -> Final rebuttal
Use this skill when you need to:
Key lessons extracted from successful rebuttal cases:
When the rebuttal task involves:
read the active installed writing memory before drafting:
~/.claude/skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/paper-miner-writing-memory.md on Claude Code installspaper-miner-writing-memory.md if availablereferences/response-strategies.mdreferences/rebuttal-templates.mdreferences/tone-guidelines.mdRead narrowly:
How this helps our writing,Reusable phrasing,Venue-specific signals if the rebuttal is venue-sensitive,Writing patterns mined only when the response needs stronger rhetorical structure.Do not quote the memory mechanically. Use it to improve structure, clarity, restraint, and professionalism.
Every response row must include one of:
unresolved if no evidence exists yet.Do not claim "we added experiments" or "the results show" without naming the artifact. If an objection has multiple atomic points, split it and cover each point separately.
For detailed guides, refer to:
references/review-classification.md - Review comment classification criteriareferences/response-strategies.md - Response strategy libraryreferences/rebuttal-templates.md - Rebuttal templates and examplesreferences/tone-guidelines.md - Tone and expression guidelinesrebuttal-writer - Dedicated agent for rebuttal writing and optimization/rebuttal <review_file> - Quick-start the rebuttal workflow