conext-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ACM CoNEXT submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the two-round TPC process with online discussion and a TPC meeting, the Accept / Reject / one-shot "major" revision decision categories, the journal-style revise-and-resubmit re-read by the original reviewers, shepherding, and how CoNEXT's two-cycle process differs from SIGCOMM and NSDI.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill conext-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.
# CoNEXT Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. CoNEXT's process is **journal-style**: papers are PACMNET articles, and the **one-shot "major" revision is a first-class decision**, not a soft rejection. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a plain accept/reject conference is that a major revision is a genuine revise-and-resubmit round re-read by the same reviewers — closer to a journal R&R — and that you get exactly **one** shot at it. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **double-anonymity**: authors and reviewers are mutually hidden through reviewing. - Review proceeds in **two rounds** by TPC members, with **online discussion** and a **TPC meeting**; strong early-round papers advance, and clearly-below-bar papers may receive an **early-reject** notification partway through the cycle. - First decisions fall into **Accept**, **Reject**, or a **one-shot major revision**. A major revision arrives with a **summary of merits** and a list of **minimum necessary changes**; authors get roughly **two months** to revise, and the **same reviewers** re-read the revision for a final accept/reject. - Conditio
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the categories
- How CoNEXT differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Reading a review packet
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the conext-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ACM CoNEXT submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the two-round TPC process with online discussion and a TPC meeting, the Accept / Reject / one-shot "major" revision decision categories, the journal-style revise-and-resubmit re-read by the original reviewers, shepherding, and how CoNEXT's two-cycle process differs from SIGCOMM and NSDI.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill conext-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.