pods-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODS submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-anonymous review, the multi-cycle-per-year calendar, the two reviewing rounds within a cycle, the 48-hour rebuttal, the accept/reject/revision decision with a shepherded revision, PACMMOD-track publication, and how PODS differs from SIGMOD's rounds and ICDT's process.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pods-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.
# PODS Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. PODS review is done by **database theoreticians** who will read your proofs, and the process is **multi-cycle** with a **revision** round: a paper is not simply accepted or rejected on the first read — a **revision** decision (minor or major) with a shepherd is a first-class outcome. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a plain accept/reject conference is that the **revision** is a real, shepherded second round inside the same cycle. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **EasyChair** with **lightweight double-anonymity**: author identities are hidden from reviewers, self-citations are third-person, and a conflict-of-interest list is declared at submission. - Each cycle has **two reviewing rounds** to accommodate revisions. Reviewers assess the **correctness and completeness of the proofs**, the significance and novelty of the result, the precision of the model, and the tightness of the bounds. - Authors get a short **rebuttal** window (about 48 hours, a few thousand characters) to correct factual misreadings before decisions. - First decisions are **accept / reject /
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the categories
- How PODS differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Reading a review packet
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the pods-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODS submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-anonymous review, the multi-cycle-per-year calendar, the two reviewing rounds within a cycle, the 48-hour rebuttal, the accept/reject/revision decision with a shepherded revision, PACMMOD-track publication, and how PODS differs from SIGMOD's rounds and ICDT's process.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pods-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.