Paper Revision

Input

• $0

  — Reviewer comments/feedback

• $1

  — Current paper draft (main.tex or paper directory)

References

• Revision workflow and prompts:

  ~/.claude/skills/paper-revision/references/revision-prompts.md

Workflow

Step 1: Parse and Prioritize Concerns

1. Extract the specific concern
2. Classify: major revision, minor revision, question, suggestion
3. Map to affected paper section(s)
4. Prioritize: address major concerns first

Step 2: Plan Revisions

Concern → Affected Section → Required Action → New Content/Experiment

• Clarification: Rewrite text for clarity
• Additional experiment: Run new experiment, add results
• New analysis: Add ablation, statistical test, or comparison
• Structural change: Move, merge, or split sections
• Citation: Add missing references

Step 3: Execute Revisions

1. Read the current section
2. Apply targeted edits (preserve surrounding structure)
3. If new experiments needed: use experiment-code skill
4. If new figures/tables needed: use figure-generation / table-generation skills
5. Mark changes (use

   \textcolor{blue}{...}

   for revised text)

Step 4: Verify Improvements

• Re-run self-review skill to check if scores improved
• Verify all reviewer concerns are addressed
• Check that revisions don't introduce new issues
• Ensure page count still fits venue requirements

Step 5: Write Revision Summary

• List all changes made with section references
• Note any new experiments, figures, or tables added
• Cross-reference each change to the reviewer concern it addresses

Rules

• Address EVERY reviewer concern — do not skip any
• Preserve paper structure unless structural change is explicitly needed
• New results must come from actual experiments, not hallucinated
• Mark all revised text clearly for the reviewers
• Keep a copy of the previous version before revising
• Compare new scores vs previous scores after revision

Related Skills

• Upstream: self-review
• Downstream: paper-compilation
• See also: rebuttal-writing, paper-writing-section