From neurips-skills
Drafts and triages NeurIPS OpenReview author responses, rebuttals, and discussion-period replies under current double-blind constraints.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/neurips-skills:neurips-author-responseThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Use this skill after reviews are released. The goal is to clarify, correct misunderstandings, and
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.
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 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>
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin neurips-skillsDrafts ICML rebuttal responses under double-blind constraints, triaging reviewer objections by soundness, originality, significance, clarity, ethics, and reproducibility.
Drafts AISTATS author responses and OpenReview discussion replies with guidance on anonymity, text-only rules, statistician-reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused clarification.
Drafts ICLR OpenReview author responses including public/private comments, revision summaries, and strategy for addressing reviewer concerns.