fse-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ESEC/FSE research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous "heavy" review, the at-least-three-reviewer PC model, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject decision categories, the journal-style revise-and-resubmit round of PACMSE, and how FSE's process differs from ICSE's cycles and ISSTA's rounds.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill fse-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.
# FSE Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. FSE's process is **journal-style**: papers are PACMSE articles, and **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 with the same reviewers, closer to a journal R&R than to a rebuttal. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **heavy double-anonymity**: identities are hidden through all reviewing *and* discussion, and any Major Revision response must itself be anonymous. - Each paper is read by **at least three** program-committee members (FSE 2027 call), who weigh the significance of the SE contribution, soundness of the method, quality and honesty of the empirical evidence, threats-to-validity reasoning, clarity, and open-science support. - First decisions fall into **Accept**, **Major Revision**, or **Reject**. A Major Revision is re-reviewed — generally by the original reviewers — against the revision and its response letter. - Accepted papers publish in **PACMSE**, so final metadata, camera-ready comp
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the categories
- How FSE differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Reading a review packet
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the fse-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ESEC/FSE research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous "heavy" review, the at-least-three-reviewer PC model, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject decision categories, the journal-style revise-and-resubmit round of PACMSE, and how FSE's process differs from ICSE's cycles and ISSTA's rounds.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill fse-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.