imc-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ACM IMC submission is evaluated, covering double-blind multi-round review, the Accept / One-Shot-Revision / Reject decision categories, the reviewer-champion rule and bounded action points, early rejection of consensus-reject papers, shepherding for artifact availability, and how IMC's two-deadline model differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI cycles.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill imc-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.
# IMC Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. IMC's process is built around **two deadlines a year** and a distinctive middle outcome — **One-Shot-Revision** — that is neither a plain reject nor an open-ended major revision. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a single-round conference is that a good-but-incomplete measurement paper has a *bounded* path to acceptance across deadlines. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **double-blind** anonymity maintained through reviewing. - Review proceeds in **several rounds**. Papers with a **consensus for rejection are notified early**, so authors can move the work to another venue without waiting for the full cycle. - First decisions fall into **Accept**, **One-Shot-Revision**, or **Reject**. Reviewers weigh the significance of the measurement finding, the credibility of vantage points and ground truth, the soundness of methodology, honesty about limitations and confounds, the **Ethics** treatment, and artifact availability. - Accepted papers may be **shepherded** by PC members — notably to ensure the **artifacts promised in the availability declaration a
- Process model
- The One-Shot-Revision, precisely
- Reading a decision against the categories
- How IMC differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the imc-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ACM IMC submission is evaluated, covering double-blind multi-round review, the Accept / One-Shot-Revision / Reject decision categories, the reviewer-champion rule and bounded action points, early rejection of consensus-reject papers, shepherding for artifact availability, and how IMC's two-deadline model differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI cycles.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill imc-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.