naacl-review-process
Use when reasoning about how a NAACL decision actually gets made — the division of labor between ACL Rolling Review (reviews, meta-review) and the NAACL program committee (commitment-stage acceptance into Main or Findings), where author leverage exists at each stage, and how the skipped-year calendar shapes committee behavior.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill naacl-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.
# NAACL Review Process NAACL outsources reviewing and keeps deciding. Understanding which body owns which judgment tells you where effort pays and where it evaporates. ## The two-stage machine **Stage 1 — ARR (weeks 0-10 of a cycle).** Three or more reviewers score the paper; an action editor synthesizes a meta-review. ARR produces an assessment, not an acceptance: nothing is "in" anywhere yet. Authors see everything and may respond mid-cycle or carry the package away. **Stage 2 — NAACL commitment.** Authors forward the frozen package (paper, reviews, response threads, meta-review) to NAACL through OpenReview by the edition's commitment deadline. The chapter's senior area chairs and program chairs then sort committed papers into Main, Findings, or reject. No new reviews are commissioned in the normal path; the SACs reread what exists. Consequences worth internalizing: - Your reviews are portable. A package that misses one NAACL can commit to a later *ACL venue — or, since NAACL skips years, may *have* to. - The response window is your only chance to change the text of the record; commitment is argument-free (aside from brief venue-specific forms some editions allow — verify per edi
- The two-stage machine
- What each actor optimizes
- Main versus Findings, mechanically
- The skipped-year effect on committee behavior
- One package's path through the machine
- Reading a review packet for stage 2
- Stage-by-stage leverage summary
- Output format
What does the naacl-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how a NAACL decision actually gets made — the division of labor between ACL Rolling Review (reviews, meta-review) and the NAACL program committee (commitment-stage acceptance into Main or Findings), where author leverage exists at each stage, and how the skipped-year calendar shapes committee behavior.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill naacl-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.