Autom Automation
ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills
Automate Autom tasks via Rube MCP (Composio). An agent skill from ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills.
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Ase Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills ase-review-process --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process .claude/skills/ase-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.
Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/
Install the "ase-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process into .claude/skills/ase-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "ase-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-processType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills ase-review-process --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process .agents/skills/ase-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "ase-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process into .agents/skills/ase-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "ase-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills ase-review-process --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process .cursor/skills/ase-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "ase-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process into .cursor/skills/ase-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "ase-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git --path ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills ase-review-process --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process .gemini/skills/ase-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "ase-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process into .gemini/skills/ase-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "ase-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills ase-review-processInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process .github/skills/ase-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "ase-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process into .github/skills/ase-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "ase-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills ase-review-process --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process .opencode/skills/ase-review-process && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "ase-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process into .opencode/skills/ase-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "ase-review-process", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
Facts
- Skill name
ase-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.7k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 740 words
- Files
- 1
- Skills in repo
- 2,387
- Repo updated
- First seen
- Licence
- MIT
At a glance
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before…
- Reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated
- SKILL.md covers Process model, Reading a decision against the…, How ASE differs from its… and Who reads you, plus 3 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
- Covering double-anonymous review
What it does
Ase Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before rebuttal, the Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes, the criteria-bound revision round, and how ASE's process differs from FSE's PACMSE Major Revision, ICSE's cycles, and ISSTA's rounds.
Its SKILL.md is about 1.7k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.
The repository describes itself as: Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的… The licence is MIT.
When your agent uses it
- Reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated
- Covering double-anonymous review
- The early-rejection stage before rebuttal
- The Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes
Example prompts
- “s process differs from FSE”
- “s cycles, and ISSTA”
- “/ase-review-process”
What it can do on your machine
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 932eb23. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
Tool permissions
Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.
From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.
Runs code
No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.
From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
Network
No URLs in SKILL.md.
From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Credentials
Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.
From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
Context cost
Ase Review Process loads about 1.7k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 96 tokens; SKILL.md has 740 words of instructions outside code blocks.
Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.
Safety
Auto-check passed
The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.
Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.
SKILL.md
The full file from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills at commit 932eb23, republished under its MIT licence (© brycewang-stanford). 740 words, ~1,652 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/ase-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- ase-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before rebuttal, the Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes, the criteria-bound revision round, and how ASE's process differs from FSE's PACMSE Major Revision, ICSE's cycles, and ISSTA's rounds.
ASE Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ASE's process has two distinctive gates that authors from a plain accept/reject conference miss: an early-rejection stage that ends the process before rebuttal for the weakest papers, and a first-class Revision outcome whose criteria are fixed in advance. Getting both wrong wastes the little leverage authors have.
Process model
- Submission and review run on HotCRP with double-anonymous review: identities are hidden from reviewers, and authors reference their own prior work in the third person.
- Each paper receives multiple reviews scoring the significance and soundness of the automation, the quality of the evaluation on real subjects, threats to validity, clarity, and the Data Availability / artifact posture.
- Early-rejection stage: papers whose initial scores are uniformly negative are rejected before the rebuttal period. This is a mercy and a filter — it gives those authors a fast answer and concentrates rebuttal effort where it can change an outcome. If your paper survives to rebuttal, at least one reviewer saw something.
- Rebuttal, then a final outcome of Accept, Revision, or Reject.
- Revision is criteria-bound: instead of rejecting, reviewers specify concrete, actionable revision criteria and agree to accept the paper in principle if those criteria are met. Authors return a revised paper with a point-by-point summary of changes, re-checked (often by a discussion lead) against the stated criteria.
- Accepted papers appear in the proceedings in both IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library; camera-ready compliance and artifact follow-through matter after the verdict.
Reading a decision against the categories
| Decision | What it means | Author move |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | The automation and its evaluation hold; minor polish only | Camera-ready + artifact; do not reopen scope |
| Revision | Repairable gaps captured as explicit criteria: a missing baseline, an ablation, a clarified construct | Meet every stated criterion, or justify why one is infeasible; map each to a change in the summary-of-changes |
| Reject | Structural: the automation is unsound, the evaluation is not on real subjects, the delta is thin | Reframe or reroute (ICSE/FSE/ISSTA or a journal); do not lightly resubmit unchanged |
| Early reject (pre-rebuttal) | Uniformly negative initial scores | No rebuttal opportunity; diagnose honestly and rebuild before any resubmission |
The strategic reading: write the initial submission so its weakest point is expressible as a revision criterion (an ablation you can add, a subject set you can extend) rather than structural (a tool you would have to redesign). The Revision outcome rewards papers that are one bounded step from done.
Show full SKILL.md (336 more words)Show less
How ASE differs from its siblings
- vs. ESEC/FSE: FSE papers are PACMSE journal articles with a Major Revision round and heavy double-anonymity into the response letter. ASE is a conference (dual IEEE/ACM, proceedings in IEEE Xplore and ACM DL) whose Revision is criteria-bound but lighter-weight, and whose center of gravity is automation rather than broad empirical SE. Do not assume shared calendars, templates, or that ASE's Revision equals PACMSE's Major Revision.
- vs. ICSE: ICSE runs its own multi-cycle structure on the IEEE side; ASE's early-rejection + Revision model is its own. Never carry ICSE's cadence or page box across.
- vs. ISSTA: ISSTA has used multi-round reviewing for every paper within a cycle; ASE's Revision is decision-driven (you revise because you were told to, against fixed criteria), not a scheduled second read of the whole pool.
Who reads you
Expect automated-SE specialists: people who build analyzers, test generators, synthesizers, repair tools, and code models. They check whether the automation is sound and general, whether the evaluation uses real subject systems and fair tool baselines, whether claims outrun evidence, and they frequently open the artifact. A tool described vaguely gets caught, not skimmed.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] area/topic tags -> reviewer pool (largest lever)
[Initial reviews] factual corrections, targeted evidence, clarifying a misread tool/experiment
[Rebuttal] survive early rejection first; then move the borderline reviewer with numbers
[Revision] the strongest lever: meet each fixed criterion, mapped in the summary-of-changes
[After reject] no appeal; reroute to a sibling flagship or a journalA rebuttal moves borderline papers when it corrects a factual misreading or supplies a number a reviewer said was missing; it does not move papers when it argues taste. In a Revision, a criterion that is neither met nor explicitly addressed is what turns the re-check into a rejection.
Misreadings to avoid
- Treating Revision as a guaranteed accept — the re-check against the criteria is real.
- Ignoring a stated criterion — silent omission of even one is the classic Revision failure.
- Treating the rebuttal as a debate — the PC discussion decides; your text is evidence for an advocate, not a closing argument.
- Forgetting the early-rejection gate — a uniformly weak first impression ends the process with no rebuttal; the first three pages and the evaluation table must land immediately.
- Projecting last year's cadence — deadline count and revision timing are decided per edition.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / awaiting reviews / rebuttal / revision / final / accepted
[Decision category] accept / revision / reject / early-reject, with the criterion driving it
[Criterion map] each review point (or revision criterion) -> significance | soundness | evaluation | threats | clarity | data-availability
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak (incl. in rebuttal/summary-of-changes) / unsupported new claims / ignoring a stated criterion© brycewang-stanford, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Files
Just SKILL.md in ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Ase Review Process next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ase Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.7k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Autom AutomationComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills | 77k | 3 repos | ~723 | Automated safety check: Pass | None | |
| Doppler Marketing Automation AutomationComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills | 77k | 3 repos | ~809 | Automated safety check: Pass | None | |
| Suggest Automationsn8n-io/n8n | 207k | — | ~2k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence | |
| Aero Workflow AutomationComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills | 77k | 3 repos | ~753 | Automated safety check: Pass | None | |
| Anchor Browser AutomationComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills | 77k | 3 repos | ~757 | Automated safety check: Pass | None |
Similar skills
Doppler Marketing Automation Automation
ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills
Automate Doppler Marketing Automation tasks via Rube MCP (Composio).
- Official
Suggest Automations
n8n-io/n8n
Offer the three most common automations for a user as a single-choice card, from your own knowledge of their team and their apps, then build the one they choose once they confirm, or offer more.
Aero Workflow Automation
ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills
Automate Aero Workflow tasks via Rube MCP (Composio). An agent skill from ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills.
Anchor Browser Automation
ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills
Automate Anchor Browser tasks via Rube MCP (Composio). An agent skill from ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills.
- Official
Automate This
github/awesome-copilot
Analyze a screen recording of a manual process and produce targeted, working automation scripts.
More from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
All 2,387 skills in this repoAaag Data Analysis
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when running and reporting the analysis for an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial statistics and modeling, remote-sensing accuracy, or…
Aaag Literature Positioning
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when positioning an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript in the literature — engaging geographic scholarship across the relevant area and the…
Aaag Rebuttal
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when responding to an Annals of the American Association of Geographers decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the subject editor and…
Aaag Research Design
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when defending the research design of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial/quantitative analysis and GIScience, remote-sensing and…
Aaag Review Process
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how the Annals of the American Association of Geographers evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review routed through a subject editor by…
Aaag Submission
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
A skill your agent uses when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Annals of the American Association of Geographers via ScholarOne Manuscripts — area/article-type selection…
Questions about Ase Review Process
What does Ase Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before…. Ase Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before rebuttal, the Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes, the criteria-bound revision round, and how ASE's process differs from FSE's PACMSE Major Revision, ICSE's cycles, and ISSTA's rounds.
When should I use Ase Review Process?
Ase Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated; covering double-anonymous review; the early-rejection stage before rebuttal; the Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes.
How do I install Ase Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/ase-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Ase Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (ASE-Skills/skills/ase-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/ase-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Ase Review Process in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?
Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-review-process -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/ase-review-process, .gemini/skills/ase-review-process, .github/skills/ase-review-process and .opencode/skills/ase-review-process in your project.
What does Ase Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Ase Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Ase Review Process access the network?
SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.
Is Ase Review Process safe to install?
Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.
What licence does Ase Review Process use?
Ase Review Process is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
How many tokens does Ase Review Process use?
About 1.7k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 6.6k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.
What are the alternatives to Ase Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Ase Review Process: Autom Automation (ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills, 77k stars), Doppler Marketing Automation Automation (ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills, 77k stars), Suggest Automations (n8n-io/n8n, 207k stars) and Aero Workflow Automation (ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills, 77k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Ase Review Process?
brycewang-stanford (a GitHub user) maintains it in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, which has 1,231 GitHub stars. The repository holds 2,387 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 27, 2026.
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.