sigcomm-review-process
Use when explaining or planning around ACM SIGCOMM peer review — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, the early-reject cut for consensus rejections, the rebuttal for discussion-phase papers, the shepherd-run one-shot revision that ends in accept or reject only, shepherding of accepted papers, and how the outcome space shapes author strategy.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sigcomm-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.
# SIGCOMM Review Process Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP and submission page before making process claims; the mechanisms below are the SIGCOMM 2026 rendering and can change per edition. ## The outcome space is wider than accept/reject SIGCOMM layers several author-facing stages, and reading which one you are in drives every subsequent move: - **Early reject.** Submissions with a consensus to reject are notified before the formal date, so authors can redirect the work to another venue sooner. It is a courtesy, not a soft accept; there is no reply that reopens it. - **Rebuttal.** Papers that advance to the discussion phase receive reviews and a chance to respond. This is the moment to correct factual errors and answer the decision-critical objection — not to relitigate taste. - **One-shot revision.** A small set of papers get a merits summary plus a required-changes list, resubmit about a month later, and are re-reviewed **by the same reviewers where possible under a PC shepherd**. The name is literal: the revised paper can only be **accepted or rejected**, so the issue list is a contract, not a suggestion. - **Accept (with shepherding).** Acce
- The outcome space is wider than accept/reject
- What reviewers weigh
- Who reviews here
- Stage-by-stage realism
- Output format
What does the sigcomm-review-process skill do?
Use when explaining or planning around ACM SIGCOMM peer review — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, the early-reject cut for consensus rejections, the rebuttal for discussion-phase papers, the shepherd-run one-shot revision that ends in accept or reject only, shepherding of accepted papers, and how the outcome space shapes author strategy.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sigcomm-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.