atc-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) submission is evaluated — the two-round extended-abstract model, the round-one gate by two reviewers, the round-two read by 3-4 reviewers, double-blind reviewing, rebuttal, conditional acceptance with shepherding, and how ATC differs from OSDI/SOSP/NSDI.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill atc-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.
# ATC Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ATC's process is unusual among systems venues in 2026 because it runs in **two rounds gated by a two-page extended abstract**, and because acceptance is **conditional on a shepherd**. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a single-round conference is that **round one can end your submission before anyone reads the full paper** — the extended abstract is not a formality. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** (`atc26.hotcrp.com`) with **double-blind** anonymity: identities are mutually hidden through reviewing. - **Round one:** each **two-page extended abstract** is read by **two experienced reviewers** with a broad systems perspective; abstracts below the bar are **rejected early**. The extended abstract is review-only and not published. - **Round two:** papers that advance are read in full by **3-4 reviewers**, who weigh the significance and usefulness of the systems contribution, the soundness of the design, the honesty and completeness of the measurements, reproducibility, and clarity. - **Rebuttal / description of changes:** authors get a short (about one p
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the model
- How ATC differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the atc-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) submission is evaluated — the two-round extended-abstract model, the round-one gate by two reviewers, the round-two read by 3-4 reviewers, double-blind reviewing, rebuttal, conditional acceptance with shepherding, and how ATC differs from OSDI/SOSP/NSDI.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill atc-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.