# Acl Author Response

Use when drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on...

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

## Description

Use when drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and deciding between responding now versus revising for a later ARR cycle.

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

# ACL Author Response

Use this when ARR reviews land. The response is written inside the review cycle,
*before* the meta-review is finalized, its primary reader is the area chair who
will summarize your paper for whatever conference you later commit to. Reopen
aclrollingreview.org/reviewing for the current cycle's exact window and rules.

## What the response can actually move

- ARR assigns at least three reviewers; after the author response there is a
  reviewer-discussion phase in which reviewers are expected to update reviews.
  A response that gives a reviewer a concrete reason to revise is worth more
  than one that argues.
- The meta-review travels with the paper to commitment. Senior area chairs at
  the venue read the meta-review first, so your real goal is to shape what the
  AC writes, not to win a debate transcript.
- Scores are not the only currency: a meta-review that says "the main weakness
  was resolved in discussion" can rescue a committed paper that scores alone
  would sink.

## Triage order

1. Factual errors in reviews (wrong dataset, misread table, missed section).
2. Misunderstandings a two-sentence clarification can dissolve.
3. Requests satisfiable from submitted material, appendix tables, checklist
   answers, the supplement archive.
4. Requests needing new experiments: promise only what is genuinely small, or
   explicitly defer to a revision cycle (ARR is built for resubmission).
5. Taste disagreements: answer once, briefly, without heat.

## NLP-reviewer objection patterns

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