corl-review-process
Use when reasoning about how CoRL reviews a paper — the OpenReview double-anonymous pipeline, reviewer/AC/SAC hierarchy, rubric scoring with weak accept as the acceptance threshold, the first-round rejection gate before rebuttal, the reviewer-AC discussion window, decision meetings, and public reviews for accepted papers.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill corl-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.
# CoRL Review Process Model the pipeline correctly and author effort lands where it can still change the outcome. Everything here reflects the CoRL 2026 process as documented on corl.org (Instruction for Reviewers / Reviews / Rebuttal pages) and OpenReview, read 2026-07-08; CoRL adjusts its process year to year, so treat this as one cycle's mechanics. ## The pipeline, stage by stage | Stage | Who acts | Author leverage | |---|---|---| | Submission + abstract registration | Authors | Full — see `corl-submission` | | Assignment (keywords, bidding, conflicts) | ACs, OpenReview matching | Indirect, via keyword choice | | Reviewing (June–early Aug 2026) | 3-ish reviewers per paper + AC | None; do rebuttal prep instead | | Reviews released + first-round gate | Program committee | None at the gate itself | | One-page rebuttal (due Aug 11, 2026 AoE) | Authors | **Highest-leverage moment** | | Reviewer–AC discussion (Aug 12–19, 2026) | Reviewers, ACs | Indirect, through the rebuttal | | SAC–AC meetings, then SACs–PCs meeting | ACs, SACs, Program Chairs | None | | Decision + (for accepted papers) public reviews | Program Chairs | None | Three structural facts to internalize: 1. **A three-tie
- The pipeline, stage by stage
- Scoring culture
- What CoRL reviewers probe first
- Reading a review packet
- Confidentiality and process hygiene
- Calibrating expectations
What does the corl-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how CoRL reviews a paper — the OpenReview double-anonymous pipeline, reviewer/AC/SAC hierarchy, rubric scoring with weak accept as the acceptance threshold, the first-round rejection gate before rebuttal, the reviewer-AC discussion window, decision meetings, and public reviews for accepted papers.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill corl-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.