Deepseek Reason
ruvnet/ruflo
Reasoning-mode completion against DeepSeek's deepseek-reasoner model (R1) via /v1/chat/completions.
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Asplos Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill asplos-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills asplos-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/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process .claude/skills/asplos-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 "asplos-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process into .claude/skills/asplos-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "asplos-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/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-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 asplos-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills asplos-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/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process .agents/skills/asplos-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 "asplos-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process into .agents/skills/asplos-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "asplos-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 asplos-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills asplos-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/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process .cursor/skills/asplos-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 "asplos-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process into .cursor/skills/asplos-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "asplos-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 ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-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 asplos-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills asplos-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/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process .gemini/skills/asplos-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 "asplos-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process into .gemini/skills/asplos-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "asplos-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 asplos-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 asplos-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/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process .github/skills/asplos-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 "asplos-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process into .github/skills/asplos-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "asplos-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 asplos-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 asplos-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/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process .opencode/skills/asplos-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 "asplos-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process into .opencode/skills/asplos-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "asplos-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
asplos-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.7k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 785 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 ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the…
- Reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters
- SKILL.md covers Stage map, What the rapid review is for —…, Full review: what… and The Major Revision channel,…, plus 6 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
- Full double-blind review
What it does
Asplos Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set, how revisions are re-reviewed as submissions, and where authors actually hold leverage in each stage.
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 ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters
- Full double-blind review
- The author-response window
- The Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set
Example prompts
- “/asplos-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
Asplos Review Process loads about 1.7k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 87 tokens; SKILL.md has 785 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). 785 words, ~1,720 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/asplos-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- asplos-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set, how revisions are re-reviewed as submissions, and where authors actually hold leverage in each stage.
ASPLOS Review Process
ASPLOS 2027 runs a staged pipeline that differs from every sibling venue in two places: an explicit rapid-review screen on the first two pages, and a Major Revision outcome with journal-like mechanics. Everything below is the 2027 cycle as verified 2026-07-08; stage design is re-decided per edition.
Stage map
| Stage | Who reads what | Author leverage |
|---|---|---|
| Rapid review | Committee members read pages 1-2 only, double-blind | Total — you wrote those pages |
| Full review | Full paper, double-blind, multiple reviewers | High before submission, zero during |
| Author response | Reviews + your rebuttal (reading expectation ≈ 800 words) | Moderate — corrections and answers land |
| Decision | Accept / Major Revision / Reject | None |
| Revision re-review | Revised paper + change note, judged as a submission | High — the requirements are written down |
What the rapid review is for — in the CFP's own framing
The 2027 CFP models the screen on early triage at high-impact journals: most submissions may not advance past it, and the point is to concentrate expert reviewer effort on papers where the committee can review with high confidence. Two consequences for authors:
- The screen prioritizes work at the architecture-languages-OS intersection. A paper that reads like a pure single-community result in its first two pages is the archetypal rapid casualty, whatever its page-7 content.
- Rapid rejection is cheap and fast for the PC but carries little diagnostic signal for you beyond "the first two pages did not make the case." Re-aim the framing before re-aiming the venue.
Full review: what systems-intersection reviewers probe
A useful red-team script — have a non-author run it against the submitted PDF:
R1 Is the claimed coupling real? Try to mentally re-implement each half
without the other; if either succeeds, expect a "why not <single venue>?"
R2 Is the baseline the strongest deployed alternative, tuned, on the same
platform? Find one stronger baseline the paper skipped.
R3 Does the evidence class match the claim (silicon vs FPGA vs simulator)?
Flag any latency/energy claim resting on an unvalidated model.
R4 Attribution: is the win traced to the mechanism via ablation, or asserted?
R5 Generality: does anything survive a workload/technology parameter change?
R6 Are the citation and formatting rules met? (Reviewers do notice.)The Major Revision channel, precisely
- Offered to some submissions in addition to Accept and Reject.
- The revision is submitted at the camera-ready deadline — six weeks after notification — a short window that assumes the required work is already scoped.
- The revision counts as a submission: if it is not accepted and you later resubmit, your change note describes deltas relative to the revision, not the original. The process has memory; treat every revision commitment as on-record.
- Leverage is highest here of any stage: the decision letter enumerates what must change. Build the revision as a checklist against that letter and nothing else — unsolicited rewrites add risk without credit.
Response window mechanics
The 2027 windows are short and fixed (April cycle: July 6-9, 2026; September cycle:
December 1-4, 2026), and the CFP scopes rebuttals to correcting factual errors and
answering reviewers' questions, with ~800 words of expected reader attention.
Strategy and drafting live in asplos-author-response; the process fact to hold
here is that no new experiments can be demanded of reviewers' attention — the
rebuttal reallocates credit across existing evidence, nothing more.
Confidentiality and conduct facts
- Reviewing is double-blind in both directions; do not attempt reviewer identification, and keep review content off public channels.
- Program leadership rotates per edition — precedent from a previous year's chairs binds nothing this year.
- Decisions are final within a cycle; the sanctioned second chance is the September gate or the revision channel, not appeal.
Show full SKILL.md (293 more words)Show less
Reading a review packet for structure, not sentiment
When reviews arrive, extract three structural facts before reacting to tone:
- Expertise distribution — which community each reviewer writes from (vocabulary and the lane of related work they cite give it away). A packet with no reviewer from one of your two coupled communities means that half of the paper was under-audited; expect the discussion to defer to whoever is closest.
- Convergence — three reviewers independently naming the same gap is an evidence problem; three naming different gaps is usually a framing problem, fixable in prose.
- The champion test — does any review advocate ("this changes how X should
be built") rather than merely tolerate? Committee outcomes at selective
venues track advocacy; a response strategy (
asplos-author-response) should aim to arm the most positive reviewer with answers they can repeat.
The pipeline on a calendar
For the live September gate: submission September 9, 2026 → rapid + full review through the autumn → author response December 1-4 → notification December 21 → Major Revision (if offered) due at the camera-ready deadline ~6 weeks later → conference April 11-15, 2027 in Heraklion. The structural implication: between September and December, author leverage is zero — the productive use of that window is preparing response infrastructure (claim-to-evidence index, appendix pointer list) so the four-day response window spends itself on drafting, not archaeology.
Between-cycles calibration
A September submission is reviewed by the same edition's committee as an April one, but the pool's load and the pile's composition differ per cycle in ways nobody publishes. Do not infer per-cycle acceptance odds from folklore, and do not delay a ready paper to chase a rumored easier round — the CFP's own framing of the two deadlines is "submit when the work is ready," and the only variable you control is readiness.
Output format
[Stage now] rapid / full / response / decision / revision
[Rapid-survival estimate] intersection visible in pp.1-2: Y/N + weakest element
[Red-team findings] R1-R6 one line each
[If Major Revision] letter-item checklist drafted: Y/N · 6-week plan feasible: Y/N
[Leverage remaining] what can still be influenced at this stage
[Cycle facts to re-verify] <URLs from the source map>© 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 ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Asplos 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asplos Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.7k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Deepseek Reasonruvnet/ruflo | 74k | — | ~626 | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| JudgeNeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit | 1.8k | — | ~2k | Automated safety check: Pass | GPL-3.0 | |
| Ejentum Reasoning Harnesssickn33/agentic-awesome-skills | 47k | 1 repos | ~1.9k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Do And JudgeNeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit | 1.8k | — | ~14k | Automated safety check: Pass | GPL-3.0 | |
| Nowait Reasoning Optimizerdavila7/claude-code-templates | 33k | 2 repos | ~1.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT |
Similar skills
Judge
NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit
Launch a meta-judge then a judge sub-agent to evaluate results produced in the current conversation
Ejentum Reasoning Harness
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
MCP server exposing four cognitive harness modes (reasoning, code, anti-deception, memory).
Do And Judge
NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit
Execute a task with sub-agent implementation and LLM-as-a-judge verification with automatic retry loop
Nowait Reasoning Optimizer
davila7/claude-code-templates
Implements the NOWAIT technique for efficient reasoning in R1-style LLMs.
The Judge PR Reviewer
tech-leads-club/agent-skills
Reviews a pull request like a strict senior engineer and posts one consolidated GitHub review, backing every comment with a verified file citation or an official source.
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 Asplos Review Process
What does Asplos Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the…. Asplos Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set, how revisions are re-reviewed as submissions, and where authors actually hold leverage in each stage.
When should I use Asplos Review Process?
Asplos Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters; full double-blind review; the author-response window; the Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set.
How do I install Asplos Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill asplos-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/asplos-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Asplos Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill asplos-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (ASPLOS-Skills/skills/asplos-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/asplos-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Asplos 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 asplos-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/asplos-review-process, .gemini/skills/asplos-review-process, .github/skills/asplos-review-process and .opencode/skills/asplos-review-process in your project.
What does Asplos Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Asplos Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Asplos 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 Asplos 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 Asplos Review Process use?
Asplos 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 Asplos Review Process use?
About 1.7k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 6.9k 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 Asplos Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Asplos Review Process: Deepseek Reason (ruvnet/ruflo, 74k stars), Judge (NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit, 1.8k stars), Ejentum Reasoning Harness (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars) and Do And Judge (NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit, 1.8k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Asplos 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.