Analysis updated 2026-05-18
Draft an evidence-backed Author Response to a single reviewer comment on an IEEE Transactions submission.
Run the full required experiment without cutting corners on data, epochs, or baselines.
Check whether the paper's described methods actually match the implementation code.
| whitemo0623/ieee-transactions-review-response-engineer | 0c33/agentic-ai | adennng/stock_strategy_lab | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| Language | Python | Python | Python |
| Setup difficulty | moderate | hard | hard |
| Complexity | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| Audience | researcher | developer | researcher |
Figures from each repo's GitHub metadata at analysis time.
Needs the paper's LaTeX, PDF, code, and review comments as inputs, Word export needs Windows with Microsoft Word.
ieee-transactions-review-response-engineer is a Codex Skill, meaning an add on workflow for the Codex coding assistant, built to help authors respond to peer review comments on IEEE Transactions journal submissions. Rather than writing a reply from scratch, it works through one reviewer comment at a time and ties every claim in the response back to actual evidence. For each comment, it reads the paper's LaTeX source, the final PDF, the implementation code, the full set of review comments, and any previously handled comments, to figure out what the reviewer is really asking for. It checks whether the paper's description matches what the code actually does, and decides whether new experiments are needed or whether existing results already answer the concern. When an experiment is required, it runs the full version, without reducing dataset size, training epochs, model size, baselines, search space, repetitions, or random seeds, so the results stay reproducible instead of being a shortcut. Every number produced is tied back to a specific results file, code file, and configuration so it can be checked later. The tool records its reasoning in a response plan file per comment, covering the reviewer's real concern, related paper and code locations, related comments and whether their evidence can be reused, the experiment design, the actual results, and where in the target Word document the reply was written. The final written response follows a fixed order: the direct conclusion first, then the deciding evidence, then the actual changes made to the manuscript, without opening with stock phrases that acknowledge the concern before answering it. Before writing, the tool backs up the target Word file, edits only the specific comment's response section, and leaves the rest of the document and its formatting untouched. On Windows, it can use Microsoft Word itself, through a hidden read only instance, to export a check PDF of just the changed page so the author can verify layout and figures before submitting. Installation is a git clone into a Codex skills folder. It ships two helper Python scripts: one to set up a comment's folder with the input file paths, and one to audit that a completed response follows the expected structure before delivery.
A Codex skill that helps authors write evidence-backed responses to peer review comments on IEEE Transactions papers, one comment at a time.
Mainly Python. The stack also includes Python, LaTeX, Word COM.
Setup difficulty is rated moderate, with roughly 1h+ to a first successful run.
Mainly researcher.
This repo across BitVibe Labs
Verify against the repo before relying on details.