wacv-review-process
Use when reasoning about how WACV decides a paper, covering the two-round model, the Round 1 Accept / Revise-and-Resubmit / Reject recommendations, the optional Round 1 rebuttal, the no-rebuttal Round 2, area-chair consolidation, double-blind confidentiality, and where author leverage actually exists across the two rounds.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill wacv-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.
# WACV Review Process Use this to model the machine WACV runs your paper through, so effort lands where it moves a decision. WACV's pipeline is unlike its CVF siblings: it is a **two-round, journal-style process** with an explicit revision path. Facts below are the WACV 2026/2027 cycles as read on 2026-07-09; reopen the current Reviewer Guidelines and Dates page before relying on a date or rule. ## The two-round pipeline Each Round 1 submission is seen by **at least three reviewers**; the area chair consolidates the reviews and issues one of three recommendations: | R1 outcome | What it means | What happens next | |---|---|---| | **Accept** | The paper clears the bar as submitted | Proceeds to camera-ready | | **Revise and Resubmit** | Not accepted, but plausibly fixable within the cycle | Invited into **Round 2** with reviewer-requested revisions | | **Reject** | Concerns too large for a short-timeframe revision | Out for this cycle | Round 2 then reviews **two populations together**: the revised R1 (Revise-and-Resubmit) papers and brand-new Round 2 submissions. Round 2 recommendations are **Accept or Reject** only. The scale of the middle band is the headline fact: in WACV 2025's
- The two-round pipeline
- Where the rebuttal fits (and where it doesn't)
- Confidentiality and conduct
- Author leverage, by stage
- Reading a recommendation honestly
- Reverify each cycle
- Output format
What does the wacv-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how WACV decides a paper, covering the two-round model, the Round 1 Accept / Revise-and-Resubmit / Reject recommendations, the optional Round 1 rebuttal, the no-rebuttal Round 2, area-chair consolidation, double-blind confidentiality, and where author leverage actually exists across the two rounds.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill wacv-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.