Individual skill
edbt-author-response
Use when drafting EDBT author responses across the two turns of a cycle — the short author-feedback reply on the initial reviews, and the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit change letter that maps every reviewer request to a concrete revision re-read by the original reviewers under the OpenProceedings process.
EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-author-response/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- 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)
- 1,404
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- operations Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 4,964 bytes
Read excerpt
# EDBT Author Response
Use this after EDBT reviews are released. An EDBT cycle has **two distinct speaking turns**, and
conflating them is a common mistake: a short **author-feedback** reply on the initial reviews, and —
if you receive a **revise** — a full **change letter** accompanying a revised paper that the
original reviewers re-read **within the same cycle**. The revision, not the letter, carries the
argument.
## Triage (both turns)
- Answer what affects the decision: significance of the data-management contribution, technical
soundness, evaluation fairness (real workloads, tuned baselines, realistic scale),
reproducibility, and clarity.
- Use evidence that already exists or that the revision will concretely add — never a vague promise.