# Micro Author Response > Use when reviews arrive for a MICRO submission and the rebuttal/revision window opens — triaging reviewer objections by what can change a decision, answering methodology attacks with runs and configs rather than promises, keeping anonymity intact, and staying inside MICRO's professional-conduct rules for rebuttals. - Skill: `thedixitjain/micro-author-response` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/micro-author-response` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/micro-author-response/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/micro-author-response --- # MICRO Author Response MICRO 2026 scheduled a combined **rebuttal/revision window, June 3–17** — two full weeks, which is generous by conference standards and changes the strategy: there is time to *run new experiments*, not merely to argue. Whether the cycle permitted an updated PDF versus text-only responses is 待核实 on the live pages; the playbook below works under either mechanic. ## Hour zero: classify before drafting Read all reviews twice, then sort every distinct objection into exactly one bucket: | Bucket | Example | Winning move | |---|---|---| | Factual misread | "No overhead analysis" — but Table 5 exists | Point precisely: "Table 5, rows 3–6" | | Methodology doubt | "Baseline prefetcher looks untuned" | Run the check they imply; report numbers | | Missing experiment | "How does this behave at 16 cores?" | Two weeks is enough — run it | | Scope disagreement | "Should also handle GPUs" | Bound the claim; do not promise a new paper | | Taste / significance | "Gains feel incremental" | Reframe headroom-captured %, cite the oracle bound | Decision-relevant buckets are the middle three. A rebuttal that spends its length on the misreads and the taste disputes has conceded the methodology fight. ## The MICRO-specific physics of rebuttals - **Methodology objections dominate outcomes here.** This community's reviewers audit configs (see `micro-review-process`). The strongest rebuttal sentence at MICRO is a number from a run completed inside the window: "With the reviewer's suggested DRAM timing, geomean speedup moves from 8.4% to 8.1% (per-workload data in the response)." - **The two-week window is a lab sprint.** Pre-stage it: keep the simulator tree and manifests warm from April (the `micro-reproducibility` ledger exists for this). Budget days 1–2 triage, days 3–10 runs, days 11–13 drafting, day 14 buffer. - **Anonymity persists.** No identifying repo updates, no "in our ISCA paper" — the guidelines keep double-blind obligations alive through this window. - **Tone is enumerated policy.** MICRO's 2026 guidelines make unprofessional language in rebuttals grounds for rejection and for reporting to ACM/IEEE. Strip every trace of indignation; a hostile reviewer is answered with data and courtesy. ## Response architecture ```text Global note (3-5 lines): the one misunderstanding shared by multiple reviews, corrected once with evidence pointers. New results summarized in one table. Per reviewer, numbered: R1.Q1 [misread] Table 5 rows 3-6 report exactly this; summary: ... R1.Q2 [new run] Ran 16-core config (same manifest, cores=16): geomean 6.9%, no regression beyond -1.2% (mcf). R2.Q1 [scope] Agreed this targets CPUs; title/claims already scoped; GPU extension noted as future work, no claim made. Close each: what text will change in the final version (one line, concrete). ``` Rules of the form: answer the question asked, lead with the number, never promise what you did not run ("we will evaluate X" convinces nobody at a venue that can check), and never introduce a result you cannot back with a manifest. ## Sentence surgery: weak versus strong response lines | Weak (deflects) | Strong (answers) | |---|---| | "We believe our baseline is reasonable." | "The baseline matches [12]'s config (Table 2); its SPEC-int MPKI of 4.1 sits inside the published 3.8–4.4 envelope." | | "We will add this experiment to the final version." | "We ran it: at 16 cores, geomean 6.9% (was 6.2% at 8), full table below." | | "The reviewer misunderstands our mechanism." | "To clarify §4.2: marking does not evict; eviction waits for a demand miss, so a false positive costs a re-fetch only if the line was truly reused." | | "This is orthogonal to our contribution." | "Agreed it is out of scope; the claims in §1 are already limited to CPUs, and we will make that explicit in the abstract." | The pattern in every strong line: a location in the paper, a number, or a bounded concession — something the reviewer can verify without trusting you. ## Prioritization under a length cap If the cycle imposes a word/character cap (待核实), spend it in this order: 1. The objection most likely to flip a negative review — usually the sharpest methodology doubt from the most engaged reviewer. 2. Any misread shared by 2+ reviewers (cheap, high yield). 3. New-experiment results, compressed to geomean + worst case + pointer. 4. Everything else in one-line acknowledgments. Reviewers who see their main concern answered with a run tend to advocate in the discussion phase; reviewers who see it deflected tend to dig in. ## Coordinating a multi-author response The two-week window fails most often on coordination, not content: - Assign one **owner per reviewer** (drafts that reviewer's answers) and one **editor** who merges voices into a single register — patchwork tone reads as disarray. - The runs and the prose proceed in parallel: owners draft placeholder sentences with `[NUMBER]` holes while the queue executes; the editor rejects any placeholder that survives to day 13. - Freeze at day 14 minus 12 hours. Last-minute additions skip the tone audit and the manifest check — the two audits this venue punishes skipping. ## After submission of the response Nothing more can be sent — hold to that even if a reviewer question haunts you; unsolicited chair contact to append arguments reads badly at any venue. Log what was promised (the "text will change" lines) — they become the camera-ready worklist if accepted (`micro-camera-ready`) and the revision spec if rejected (`micro-workflow` fallback lattice). Archive the new runs' manifests beside the response text; whichever way July 7 goes, that evidence gets reused. Notification for the 2026 cycle: July 7. ## Output format ```text [Objection ledger] misread N · methodology N · new-experiment N · scope N · taste N [Flip target] [Run plan] experiments launchable in window: list with day estimates [New numbers] [Tone audit] zero sarcasm/indignation: confirmed [Promises logged] camera-ready worklist entries: N ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `MICRO-Skills/skills/micro-author-response/SKILL.md`