icsme-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an IEEE ICSME research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-decision cut that issues Accept/Reject before the rebuttal, the "Response Recommended" author-response period, the single-round accept/reject model with no Major Revision, and how ICSME's process differs from FSE's journal-style round and ICSE's cycles.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icsme-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.
# ICSME Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ICSME's process is **conference-style and single-round**: papers are reviewed once, double-anonymously, and the outcome is accept or reject — there is **no journal-style Major Revision**. The distinctive mechanism authors must plan for is the **early-decision cut**: before the rebuttal even opens, the strongest and weakest papers are already decided, and only the middle is asked to respond. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **EasyChair** with **double-anonymity**: author identities are hidden from reviewers throughout. - Each paper is read by multiple program-committee members who weigh the significance of the maintenance/evolution contribution, soundness of method, quality and honesty of the empirical evidence (mined data, subject systems, statistics), threats-to-validity reasoning, clarity, and open-science support. - At the **start of the author-response period** the PC issues an early decision: - **Accept** — reviewers agree the paper is publishable as is; no response requested. - **Reject** — reviewers judge the paper too deficient for a response to change; no response requested. - *
- Process model
- Reading your early decision
- How ICSME differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Reading a review packet
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the icsme-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an IEEE ICSME research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-decision cut that issues Accept/Reject before the rebuttal, the "Response Recommended" author-response period, the single-round accept/reject model with no Major Revision, and how ICSME's process differs from FSE's journal-style round and ICSE's cycles.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icsme-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.