# Aaai Author Response

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short...

- Repository: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills (1346 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-09-27
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaai-author-response -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaai-author-response -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaai-author-response -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaai-author-response -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`

## Description

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# AAAI Author Response

Use this after AAAI reviews are released. AAAI rebuttal space is scarce: the AAAI-26 FAQ allowed a
single 2500-character response, disallowed URLs, and discouraged new results. **AAAI-27 has not yet
published its own rebuttal FAQ**, its author feedback window is 2026-10-19 to 10-25, so treat those
limits as the prior cycle's shape and reopen the current FAQ before drafting.

## Triage

- Respond to decision-critical factual errors first.
- Address human reviews and AI-generated review points when they affect the SPC/AC decision.
- Do not spend space on tone, score fairness, or reviewer motivation.
- Do not include URLs if current rules forbid them.
- Do not introduce new experiments or results. Explain existing evidence, clarify omissions, or
  state why requested experiments are not needed.
- If supplementary files were missing or corrupted, acknowledge the limitation; AAAI has not
  permitted updates at rebuttal time, and the supplementary deadline (2026-07-31 for AAAI-27) closed
  months before feedback opens.

## What moves an AAAI score

Author feedback at AAAI is read by human reviewers and weighed in SPC/AC discussion, not by the
non-decisional AI review. With one short response and no second round, spend every character on the
concern most likely to flip a borderline decision. Triage each reviewer point into a lane:

- Factual error that, if uncorrected, sinks the paper: answer first, cite the submitted anchor.
- Misread of an existing result: clarify and point to the table, theorem, or appendix line.
- Request for a new experiment: explain why submitted evidence covers it, or scope the claim.
- Taste or framing complaint: usually skip; a defensive paragraph rarely moves the score.

## Reviewer-pushback patterns and the AAAI fix

The rest: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-author-response/SKILL.md