icalp-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-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.
# ICALP Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ICALP's process is **conference-style and correctness-centered**: a paper is accepted or rejected in one round (no journal-style major revision), and the reviewers' overriding job is to judge whether the **theorems are significant and the proofs are correct**. The most consequential thing to internalize is that the two tracks run **different processes** — Track B gives you a rebuttal, Track A generally does not. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP**, on **separate servers per track**, under **lightweight double-blind**: identities are hidden for an unbiased first read, self-references are third person, but the regime is deliberately not adversarial about de-anonymization. - Each paper is refereed by the track's **program committee** (often with sub-reviewers who are subject experts), who weigh the **significance** of the result, the **correctness and depth** of the proofs, the **improvement over prior bounds**, and clarity. - **Track A** (Algorithms, Complexity and Games): chairs for ICALP 2026 are **Sayan Bhattacharya** and **Danupon Nanongkai** (reported). Authors are contacted *
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the criteria
- How ICALP differs from its US siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Reading a review packet
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the icalp-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-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.