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.
SkillScore100Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 8 of 22 without it.
Without skill36%
With skill100%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response text omits the grant number.
The response stance field is set to mixed.
The response text omits institutional lab names.
and 19 more in the full report
14 fixed8 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+64 pp
Tokens
+47%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-23%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v122 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 14 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 14
Prompt
Reviewer 3 asked who funded the compute cluster for our ARR submission. We want to respond in the text box: 'Training was supported by NSF Grant #9876543 and run at the MIT CSAIL cluster.' Draft the response to Reviewer 3.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response text omits the grant number.
Missed
Passed
The response text omits institutional lab names.
Missed
Passed
case-07 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md120 linessingle file
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
Factual errors in reviews (wrong dataset, misread table, missed section).
Misunderstandings a two-sentence clarification can dissolve.
Requests satisfiable from submitted material — appendix tables, checklist
answers, the supplement archive.
Requests needing new experiments: promise only what is genuinely small, or
explicitly defer to a revision cycle (ARR is built for resubmission).
Taste disagreements: answer once, briefly, without heat.
NLP-reviewer objection patterns
Objection
Underlying worry
Response that works at ACL
"Only evaluated on English"
Overclaimed generality
Scope the claim explicitly; cite the multilingual appendix run if one exists
"Gains may be contamination"
Test data in pretraining
Point to the decontamination check or concede and describe the planned audit
"No error analysis"
Numbers without understanding
Quote the analysis section or summarize 2-3 systematic error classes from logged outputs
"Human eval lacks agreement stats"
Unreliable judgments
Report the IAA already computed; never invent a number in the response box
"Missing recent baseline X"
Stale comparison set
Distinguish X technically, or accept it as revision work with a stated plan