itcs-review-process
Use to model the ITCS reviewing pipeline — a program committee plus external reviewers, conceptual-novelty weighting, lightweight double-blind, no author-response/rebuttal phase, and a single accept/reject decision — and to understand where the (limited) author leverage actually is.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill itcs-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.
# ITCS Review Process Understanding how ITCS decides tells you where your effort matters — and at ITCS, almost all of it matters *before* the deadline, because there is **no rebuttal, no revise-and-resubmit, and no second round.** The submission is judged as it stands. This skill models the pipeline so you can calibrate expectations and pre-empt the objections you will never get to answer. ## The pipeline 1. **Registration then submission.** Title/abstract/authors/conflicts lock ~2 days before the paper (early September); the abstract drives PC bidding. Then the anonymized full PDF with complete proofs is uploaded to HotCRP. 2. **PC + external review.** A program committee (order of a few dozen members) handles the load; PC members review directly or solicit **external reviewers** (subreferees) for expertise. The PC — not the external reviewers — owns the decisions. 3. **Reviewing on the novelty axis.** Reviewers are briefed to weight **conceptual contribution** — a new model, question, or connection — over incremental technical depth. "Is this a new question worth asking, and is the model alive?" carries more weight than "is this the year's hardest theorem?" (contrast STOC/FOCS; s
- The pipeline
- Lightweight double-blind, precisely
- The no-rebuttal reality
- Where the (limited) leverage is
- What reviewers are looking for (calibrate to these)
- Common misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the itcs-review-process skill do?
Use to model the ITCS reviewing pipeline — a program committee plus external reviewers, conceptual-novelty weighting, lightweight double-blind, no author-response/rebuttal phase, and a single accept/reject decision — and to understand where the (limited) author leverage actually is.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill itcs-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.