podc-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round, the Brief Announcements track's lighter bar, and how PODC's process differs from DISC, SPAA, and the sequential-theory venues STOC/FOCS/SODA.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill podc-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.
# PODC Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. PODC's process is **proofs-first and single-shot**: a specialized program committee reads your model and your proof, and the decision is **accept or reject** — there is **no Major Revision, no journal-style R&R**. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a software-engineering or ML venue is that there is no second read to fix a gap in; everything that would go into a revision must be in the initial submission. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **lightweight double-blind** anonymity: identities are hidden from reviewers (no author names/affiliations/emails in the submission), a change from PODC's historically single-blind practice. - Each paper is read by program-committee members (often with external subreviewers for specific subareas) who weigh: the **significance** of the result, the **correctness of the proof**, the **precision and honesty of the model/assumptions**, **novelty** against known bounds, and clarity. - The committee reads the abstract and the **first 10 pages** as guaranteed; deeper proofs are read at its discretion — so the merits case
- Process model
- What a PODC reviewer actually checks
- How PODC differs from its siblings
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Reading a decision
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the podc-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round, the Brief Announcements track's lighter bar, and how PODC's process differs from DISC, SPAA, and the sequential-theory venues STOC/FOCS/SODA.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill podc-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.