acl-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-process --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# ACL Review Process Use this to model where an ACL paper actually is and who decides what next. ACL decoupled reviewing from the conference: ARR produces the review package; the conference consumes it. Confirm current mechanics at aclrollingreview.org/reviewing, since cycle structure has changed repeatedly (most recently to 10-week cycles in 2025). ## The pipeline, stage by stage 1. **ARR cycle intake**: submission on OpenReview to a dated cycle (e.g., ARR January 2026); checks for format, Limitations, checklist, anonymity. 2. **Review**: at least three reviewers score and write reviews. 3. **Author response + discussion**: authors reply; reviewers discuss and may update reviews (see `acl-author-response`). 4. **Meta-review**: the action editor / area chair synthesizes reviews into a meta-review with a recommendation. Notably, ARR senior area chairs do *not* make accept/reject recommendations — that authority sits with the venue. 5. **Commitment**: authors choose whether and where to send the finished package — ACL, or another \*ACL venue accepting that cycle. 6. **Venue decision**: the conference's senior area chairs and program chairs read reviews + meta-review and decide: main
- The pipeline, stage by stage
- Who decides what
- Outcomes and what they mean
- Reading your review package strategically
- Venue-shopping within the ARR ecosystem
- Anatomy of one 10-week cycle
- Reading reviewer language for what it predicts
- Confidentiality and conduct boundaries
- Output format
What does the acl-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-process --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.