atc-author-response
Use when writing the ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) rebuttal and the shepherd's description-of-changes — the short round-two response that corrects factual misreadings and supplies requested measurements, and the point-by-point revision record a conditional-acceptance shepherd checks before final acceptance.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill atc-author-response --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# ATC Author Response ATC gives you two distinct writing moments after review, and they have different jobs. The **rebuttal** (a short, roughly one-page window during round two) is for correcting misreadings and supplying a measurement a reviewer said was missing. The **description of changes** (after a **conditional accept**, for the **shepherd**) is a point-by-point record proving every required revision was made. Confusing the two — arguing in the shepherd round, or over-promising in the rebuttal — is the classic failure. ## The rebuttal (round two, ~1 page) Its job is narrow and its space is tiny, so triage ruthlessly: - **Correct factual misreadings** first — a reviewer who misread the testbed, the baseline, or the claim can be moved by a precise correction with a pointer to the section/figure. - **Supply the one number that matters** — if a reviewer said "no tail latency" or "no matched-cost comparison," and you have or can add it, state the result concisely. Systems reviewers move on evidence, not on rhetoric. - **Concede cleanly** what you cannot fix this cycle — a crisp "correct; here is the honest bound" buys more credibility than defending an overclaim. - **Do not argue
- The rebuttal (round two, ~1 page)
- The description of changes (shepherd round)
- Mapping requests to moves
- What moves an outcome vs. what does not
- Reverify each cycle
- Output format
What does the atc-author-response skill do?
Use when writing the ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) rebuttal and the shepherd's description-of-changes — the short round-two response that corrects factual misreadings and supplies requested measurements, and the point-by-point revision record a conditional-acceptance shepherd checks before final acceptance.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill atc-author-response --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.