Menu

Individual skill

fse-author-response

0upvotes

Use when drafting ESEC/FSE author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the journal-style Major Revision response letter that must stay double-anonymous, map every reviewer request to a concrete tracked change, and survive re-review by the original reviewers under PACMSE.

FSE-Skills/skills/fse-author-response/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,409
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# FSE Author Response

Use this after FSE reviews are released. FSE has **two distinct speaking turns**, and conflating
them is a common mistake: a short initial rebuttal, and — if you receive a **Major Revision** — a
full, journal-style **response letter** accompanying a revised paper that the original reviewers
re-read. Both must respect heavy double-anonymity: the letter itself must not reveal authors,
institutions, or repository ownership.

## Triage (both turns)

- Answer what affects the decision: significance, soundness, evidence quality, threats to validity,
  clarity, and open-science support.
- Use evidence that already exists or that the revision will concretely add — never a vague promise.
- Correct factual misreadings first; a reviewer who misread a table is often persuadable.
Back to top