socc-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ACM SoCC submission is evaluated, covering dual-anonymous review, the two-round-per-year model with the no-cross-round-resubmission rule, the author-response (rebuttal) period, the joint SIGMOD+SIGOPS reviewer pool that reads for both systems and data quality, and how SoCC's process differs from OSDI/NSDI/EuroSys.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill socc-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.
# SoCC Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. SoCC — the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing — evaluates papers through a **dual-anonymous, two-round** process with a **rebuttal**, and its reviewer pool is drawn from **both SIGMOD and SIGOPS**. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a pure systems or pure data venue is that your paper is judged on **both** axes at once: a systems reviewer probes the mechanism and the deployment, a data/measurement reviewer probes the workloads, traces, and statistical honesty — and a champion needs answers for both. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **dual anonymity**: reviewers do not see authors and authors do not see reviewers. - SoCC runs **two rounds per year**, each a self-contained accept/reject cycle with its own abstract, submission, **author-response window**, and notification. A paper **rejected in Round 1 cannot be resubmitted to Round 2** the same year. - Each paper is read by multiple PC members spanning the systems-and-data pool, who weigh the significance of the cloud contribution, soundness of the design, quality of the measurement (throughput, late
- Process model
- Reading a decision against the axes
- How SoCC differs from its siblings
- Who reads you
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the socc-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an ACM SoCC submission is evaluated, covering dual-anonymous review, the two-round-per-year model with the no-cross-round-resubmission rule, the author-response (rebuttal) period, the joint SIGMOD+SIGOPS reviewer pool that reads for both systems and data quality, and how SoCC's process differs from OSDI/NSDI/EuroSys.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill socc-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.