Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill --skill paper-response-to-reviewersgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skillWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill/paper-response-to-reviewers)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill/paper-response-to-reviewers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill/paper-response-to-reviewers/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill/paper-response-to-reviewers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill/paper-response-to-reviewers.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00124 | $0.01563 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00625 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00313 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
paper-response-to-reviewers scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Paper Response to Reviewers
Scope
For handling journal or conference reviewer comments, especially IEEE Transactions and control, robotics, automation, aerospace, and intelligent-systems venues.
This is not a "generate the reply letter directly" template. It is a full revision loop:
understand the paper and the comments -> design the reply strategy -> revise the manuscript -> assess whether the revision suffices -> write the formal response letter -> verify locations and marked text
This skill produces the revision plan and the response letter. Editing the manuscript itself is higher-risk: have the user confirm manuscript edits, route structural rewrites to paper-argument-reconstructor, and final language to paper-polisher.
See references/response_letter_guide.md for the full severity/evidence grading, decision gates, conflicting-reviewer and multi-round handling, reply templates, and checklist. For a short reply, the core principles and rules below are enough.
Use another skill when the task is primarily:
- the short cover letter accompanying the submission (not the detailed replies): use
paper-cover-letter(if available); - restructuring an argument or section a reviewer attacked: use
paper-argument-reconstructor(if available), then report the change here; - final TeX-safe polishing of the reply text: use
paper-polisher(if available).
Verification Mode
This skill has two modes. By default it plans and writes the response as described above. When the input is a response letter another tool or skill has already drafted, switch to verification mode instead of regenerating:
- do not overwrite the other tool's wording;
- check it against this skill's rules: promised-change-to-manuscript consistency, evidence-based (not bluffed) rebuttals, softened overstatements, no S3/S4 concern answered with future work alone, and mutually consistent replies across reviewers;
- report only the deviations and their locations; fix one in place only if it breaks a hard rule.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 87 lines · 124 tokens per session scan A 1fbe9f8927a1
paper-response-to-reviewers is a skill published in the GitHub repository yujie-jason-zhang/polish_skill (24 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 124 tokens to every session and 1,563 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
academic-plotting
Generates publication-quality figures for ML papers from research context. Given a paper section or description, extracts system components and relationships to generate architecture diagrams via Gemini. Given experiment results or data, auto-selects chart type and generates data-driven figures via matplotlib/seaborn.…
systems-paper-writing
Comprehensive guide for writing systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides paragraph-level structural blueprints, writing patterns, venue-specific checklists, reviewer guidelines, LaTeX templates, and conference deadlines. Use this skill for all systems conference paper writing.
refactor-research-code
Clean research code for public release while preserving reported results. Uses releaseaudit.py to separate safe mechanical cleanup from ask-first behavior risks and identity leaks. Use for release-ready repos, dead experiment branches, config extraction, documented entrypoints, and double-blind code cleanup.
prepare-artifacts
Prepares a reproducibility artifact (code/data) for submission and badging. Use when a researcher says "artifact evaluation", "artifact appendix", "reproducibility", "badge", "Artifacts Available/Evaluated/Functional/Reusable", "Results Reproduced/Replicated", "ACM badging", "USENIX/OSDI/SOSP AE", "SIGMOD ARI"…
simulate-reviewers
Venue-calibrated peer-review simulation. Use when a researcher says "simulate reviewers", "mock review", "review my paper like a NeurIPS reviewer", "what would Reviewer 2 say", "red-team my paper", "find weaknesses before I submit", "peer review my paper", "strengths and weaknesses / pros and cons of my paper", "what…
verify-results
Check whether reported paper metrics are consistent with outputs from the local code artifact. Use for result reproduction checks, artifact evaluation, reproducibility checklists, code-versus-paper audits, table or claim metric comparisons, and badge-readiness review.