percom-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an IEEE PerCom research submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the three-TPC-member model, the early-rejection stage, the single-round bounded rebuttal gated by a "weak accept," the accept/reject decision, and how PerCom's process differs from ACM UbiComp/IMWUT's journal revise cycle.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill percom-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.
# PerCom Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. PerCom's process is a **single annual review round with a bounded rebuttal and an early-rejection gate** — not a journal-style revise-and-resubmit, and not a multi-deadline conference. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from ACM UbiComp/IMWUT is that there is **no revise cycle**: the paper is judged on what it submitted, with one bounded chance to answer questions. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **double-blind** review: authors anonymize in good faith and cite their own prior work in the third person. - Each reviewed paper is read by **three** TPC members, who weigh the significance of the pervasive-computing contribution, soundness of the method, quality and honesty of the evaluation (real subjects, cross-subject generalization, appropriate metrics), and clarity. - **Early-rejection gate.** After the initial reviews, papers for which **no reviewer** sees a path to publication are **early-rejected** and notified (PerCom 2027: ~20 November 2026), so authors can improve and target another venue promptly. There is **no rebuttal** for these papers. -
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the stages
- How PerCom differs from its neighbors
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Reading a review packet
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the percom-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an IEEE PerCom research submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the three-TPC-member model, the early-rejection stage, the single-round bounded rebuttal gated by a "weak accept," the accept/reject decision, and how PerCom's process differs from ACM UbiComp/IMWUT's journal revise cycle.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill percom-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.