# Icra Author Response > Use when responding to ICRA reviews in the channels that actually exist — turning decision-day reviewer comments into a disciplined camera-ready revision, writing the revise-and-resubmit response letter on the RA-L pathway, or converting an ICRA reject into a targeted IROS or RA-L resubmission — since classic ICRA offers no rebuttal. - Skill: `thedixitjain/icra-author-response` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/icra-author-response` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/icra-author-response/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/icra-author-response --- # ICRA Author Response At most conferences "author response" means a rebuttal window. Classic ICRA has none (verify the current cycle — see `icra-review-process`): reviews arrive together with the January decision. Author response at ICRA therefore happens in three real channels, each with its own craft: the **camera-ready revision** after acceptance, the **RA-L response letter** if the work travels the journal pathway, and the **resubmission memo** after a reject. Doing these well is a skill; pretending a rebuttal exists is a planning error. ## Channel 1: the camera-ready revision (accepted papers) Reviewer comments on an accepted ICRA paper are advisory — no one re-checks compliance — but ignoring them is shortsighted: reviewers are your first readers, their confusions predict everyone else's, and the same people may review the journal extension. Triage each comment: | Comment type | Action in camera-ready | Budget guard | |---|---|---| | Factual/math error caught | fix unconditionally | always fits | | Ambiguity that misled a reviewer | rewrite the passage | high priority | | Missing reference | add it | cheap | | "Add experiment X" | usually defer to journal version; add only if data exists | 8-page total final limit | | Stylistic taste | your call | lowest | | Requests contradicting each other | pick one, note the tension in limitations | — | Remember the geometry: submissions ran 6 content + 2 reference pages, while the 2026 final limit was 8 pages *total including references* — additions compete with your bibliography. Never silently change claims: if a fix weakens a number, the number changes and the text stays honest. ## Channel 2: the RA-L response letter (journal pathway) Work routed through RA-L (see `icra-topic-selection`) can receive a revise decision, and here a real response letter exists with journal norms: ```text Response structure per point: R1.3 (reviewer text quoted verbatim, trimmed fairly) > Response: > Change: Sec. III-B, para 2 rewritten; Table II adds the n=15 > wrist-mounted condition; Fig. 4 caption now states 1× speed. > (If disagreeing) Evidence: never volume of prose> ``` - Answer every point, including the painful ones; a skipped point reads as concession or evasion. - Lead with agreement where genuine — robotics reviewers respond well to "the reviewer is right; trials with the deformable set were added" because added hardware evidence is costly and shows commitment. - Keep the letter's tone flat and technical; the AE reads it as a signal of whether a second round will converge. - Respect the clock: RA-L revisions run on a fixed schedule within its ~6-month publish-or-reject envelope; start hardware reruns the day the decision lands, not after the letter is drafted. ## Channel 3: the resubmission memo (rejected papers) A January ICRA reject reaches March IROS or same-week RA-L only through disciplined conversion. Write an internal memo, not a grievance: 1. Extract every substantive objection; deduplicate across reviewers. 2. Classify: evidence gap / clarity failure / novelty challenge / scope mismatch (the categories predict different fixes). 3. For each, decide: fix with new data, fix with rewriting, or consciously accept the risk — with an owner and a date. 4. Diff the venue: what IROS or RA-L reviewers will additionally expect (RA-L reviewers, for instance, read with journal-permanence standards; a "promising demo" framing must mature into a validated-claim framing). 5. Reviewer-pool overlap is high across ICRA/IROS/RA-L — assume at least one repeat reader who will check whether their objection was addressed. ## Tone calibration (robotics reviewers, specifically) - Reviewers here are practitioners; "in a real deployment this would not matter" arguments fail unless backed by deployment data they can see. - Concede hardware limits plainly — "the F/T sensor saturates at 50 N, so higher-load trials were not possible" — rather than reframing constraints as choices; the community respects physical honesty. - Avoid ML-rebuttal reflexes (citing three new preprints, promising a camera- ready appendix): ICRA has no appendix, and the channels above run on data and page-anchored edits, not citation volume. ## Discipline common to all three channels - **Quote before answering.** Restating a comment in your own words invites the accusation of answering a strawman. - **Evidence outranks assertion.** One added table row beats three paragraphs of explanation; in robotics, one new uncut video clip beats both. - **Track everything.** Keep a comment → action → location ledger; it becomes the camera-ready cover note, the RA-L response letter skeleton, or the resubmission changelog respectively. - **Never fabricate agility.** "We have added extensive new experiments" backed by nothing is checkable and fatal with overlapping reviewer pools. ## Ledger template ```text | # | Reviewer point (quoted) | Class | Action | Where | Status | |---|-------------------------|-------|--------|-------|--------| | R2.1 | "success criterion never defined" | clarity | verbatim criterion added | Sec V-A | done | | R1.4 | "compare against MPC baseline" | evidence | n=20 MPC trials run | Tab III | data 6/12 | | R3.2 | "extend to deformables" | scope | deferred; limitation stated | Sec VII | done | ``` ## Output format ```text [Channel] camera-ready / RA-L letter / resubmission memo [Comment ledger] points: fix-now / defer-stated / risk-accepted [Evidence adds] [Page impact] fits final limit? [Repeat-reviewer check] objections addressed verbatim-quotably: y/n [Deadline] ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ICRA-Skills/skills/icra-author-response/SKILL.md`