ipsn-author-response
Use when drafting an IPSN-lineage rebuttal, covering the double-blind response to sensor-systems reviewers on ground truth, baseline fairness, deployment realism, energy accounting, and simulation-vs-real-hardware doubts, without leaking identity and without promising experiments not yet run.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ipsn-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.
# IPSN Author Response Use this after IPSN-lineage reviews are released. IPSN is conference-style: a short, decision-focused **rebuttal** (verify the window and format on the current successor call), not a journal-style revise-and-resubmit letter. The rebuttal must stay **double-blind** — no author names, institutions, lab-named testbeds, or identity-revealing dataset/firmware links — and it must answer on the axes a sensor-systems reviewer actually raised. ## Triage - Answer what affects the decision: **evidence realism** (simulation vs real hardware), **soundness** of the method/platform, **baseline fairness**, **ground-truth validity**, **deployment honesty**, and **energy/latency accounting**. - Use evidence that already exists or a number you can compute from data you already have — never a vague promise to run an experiment. - Correct factual misreadings first; a reviewer who misread an energy table or a yield number is often persuadable. - Keep every word anonymous. Do not name your board, testbed, institution, or a resolvable dataset DOI, even to strengthen a point. ## The rebuttal itself Short and decision-focused. One decision-critical point per reviewer beats an exhausti
- Triage
- The rebuttal itself
- Reviewer pushback patterns (sensor-systems flavored)
- Anonymity in the rebuttal (easy to slip)
- Calibration
- Output format
What does the ipsn-author-response skill do?
Use when drafting an IPSN-lineage rebuttal, covering the double-blind response to sensor-systems reviewers on ground truth, baseline fairness, deployment realism, energy accounting, and simulation-vs-real-hardware doubts, without leaking identity and without promising experiments not yet run.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ipsn-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 984 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.