eacl-author-response
Use when drafting an EACL author response during the ACL Rolling Review rebuttal window, covering how to triage reviewer points, address the action editor who writes the meta-review, answer NLP objection patterns, run in-window experiments, flag deficient reviews, and decide respond-now versus revise-for-a-later-venue given EACL's single cycle.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eacl-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.
# EACL Author Response Use this to work the ARR rebuttal window for a paper aimed at EACL. In ARR the response is addressed to reviewers **and** to the **action editor** who will synthesize a meta-review; that meta-review, not any single score, is what EACL's area chairs read at commitment. Reopen the current ARR author guidelines before drafting. ## Read the room first - Identify the **action editor's lens**: the meta-review is where reviews get weighed, so a response that moves the action editor matters more than one that merely satisfies the harshest reviewer. - Separate **blocking objections** (a claim reviewers think is unsupported, a missing baseline, a reproducibility gap) from **preference comments** (a different framing, an extra dataset a reviewer would like). Spend the word budget on the blocking set. - EACL's **single cycle** raises the stakes of this window: for an edition like EACL 2027 there is no next cycle to defer to, so a fixable objection should be fixed *now* if the experiment fits the window. ## Objection-to-move table | Reviewer objection pattern | Strong response move | Weak response move | |---|---|---| | "Claim broader than evidence" | Narrow the claim in
- Read the room first
- Objection-to-move table
- Drafting rules
- Runnable-experiment discipline
- Flagging a deficient review
- When not to respond hard
- Output format
What does the eacl-author-response skill do?
Use when drafting an EACL author response during the ACL Rolling Review rebuttal window, covering how to triage reviewer points, address the action editor who writes the meta-review, answer NLP objection patterns, run in-window experiments, flag deficient reviews, and decide respond-now versus revise-for-a-later-venue given EACL's single cycle.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eacl-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.