Menu

Individual skill

issta-author-response

0upvotes

Use when drafting an ISSTA author response for the rebuttal window or planning a Major-Revision resubmission, covering evidence-anchored replies, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, converting reviewer asks into a revision ledger, anonymity in the response, and the difference between a rebuttal claim and a promised change.

ISSTA-Skills/skills/issta-author-response/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

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)
1,405
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

# ISSTA Author Response

Use this after ISSTA reviews are released. ISSTA's response step feeds a decision that is not just
accept/reject: a first-round paper can be told to submit a **Major Revision**, so the response and
the revision plan are two connected artifacts. Reopen the current author-response and
major-revision instructions before drafting, because the dates and mechanics are cycle-specific.

## Triage

- Answer concerns that move the decision: soundness of the technique, fairness of the evaluation,
  scope of the claims, comparison to related work, and verifiability. Cosmetic complaints come last.
- Use submitted evidence — paper sections, tables, the artifact, threats-to-validity discussion.
  Do not promise experiments you have not run unless you can run them within a Major-Revision window.
- Keep the response anonymous. Do not reveal institution, tool name if it de-anonymizes, repository
Back to top