ase-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before rebuttal, the Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes, the criteria-bound revision round, and how ASE's process differs from FSE's PACMSE Major Revision, ICSE's cycles, and ISSTA's rounds.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-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.
# ASE Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ASE's process has **two distinctive gates** that authors from a plain accept/reject conference miss: an **early-rejection stage** that ends the process *before* rebuttal for the weakest papers, and a first-class **Revision** outcome whose criteria are fixed in advance. Getting both wrong wastes the little leverage authors have. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **double-anonymous** review: identities are hidden from reviewers, and authors reference their own prior work in the third person. - Each paper receives multiple reviews scoring the **significance and soundness of the automation**, the quality of the evaluation on real subjects, threats to validity, clarity, and the Data Availability / artifact posture. - **Early-rejection stage:** papers whose initial scores are **uniformly negative are rejected before the rebuttal period**. This is a mercy and a filter — it gives those authors a fast answer and concentrates rebuttal effort where it can change an outcome. If your paper survives to rebuttal, at least one reviewer saw something. - **Rebuttal**, then a final outcome of
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the categories
- How ASE differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the ase-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before rebuttal, the Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes, the criteria-bound revision round, and how ASE's process differs from FSE's PACMSE Major Revision, ICSE's cycles, and ISSTA's rounds.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-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.