Arize Evaluator
github/awesome-copilot
Handles LLM-as-judge evaluation workflows on Arize including creating/updating evaluators, running evaluations on spans or experiments, managing tasks, trigger-run operations, column mapping, and…
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Edbt Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill edbt-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills edbt-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/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process .claude/skills/edbt-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 "edbt-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process into .claude/skills/edbt-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "edbt-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/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-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 edbt-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills edbt-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/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process .agents/skills/edbt-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 "edbt-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process into .agents/skills/edbt-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "edbt-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 edbt-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills edbt-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/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process .cursor/skills/edbt-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 "edbt-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process into .cursor/skills/edbt-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "edbt-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 EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-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 edbt-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills edbt-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/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process .gemini/skills/edbt-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 "edbt-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process into .gemini/skills/edbt-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "edbt-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 edbt-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 edbt-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/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process .github/skills/edbt-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 "edbt-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process into .github/skills/edbt-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "edbt-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 edbt-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 edbt-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/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process .opencode/skills/edbt-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 "edbt-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process into .opencode/skills/edbt-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "edbt-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
edbt-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.6k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 727 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 EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the…
- Reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated
- SKILL.md covers Process model, Reading a decision against the…, How EDBT differs from its… and Who reads you, plus 4 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
- Covering Microsoft CMT reviewing
What it does
Edbt Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit second read by the original reviewers, the cycle-to-conference roll, and how EDBT's rolling model differs from SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and the co-located ICDT.
Its SKILL.md is about 1.6k 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 EDBT research submission is evaluated
- Covering Microsoft CMT reviewing
- The author-feedback phase
- The accept / revise / reject decision
Example prompts
- “/edbt-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
Edbt Review Process loads about 1.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 94 tokens; SKILL.md has 727 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). 727 words, ~1,618 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/edbt-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- edbt-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit second read by the original reviewers, the cycle-to-conference roll, and how EDBT's rolling model differs from SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and the co-located ICDT.
EDBT Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. EDBT's process is a multiple-cycle rolling model with a real in-cycle revise-and-resubmit: within one cycle, a paper is reviewed, gets an author-feedback exchange, receives accept / revise / reject, and — if revise — is revised and re-read by the same reviewers before a final accept/reject. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a one-shot conference is that a revise is a genuine second chance inside the same cycle, not a soft rejection.
Process model
- Reviewing runs in Microsoft CMT (Conference Management Toolkit). Confirm the blind policy for the cycle — single- vs double-blind is decided per edition (待核实; EDBT has historically used author-identified single-blind reviewing).
- Each paper is read by multiple program-committee members who weigh the significance of the data-management contribution, technical soundness, the fairness and honesty of the evaluation (real workloads, tuned baselines, realistic scale), reproducibility, and clarity.
- The cycle includes an author-feedback phase on the initial reviews, then a first notification of accept / revise / reject.
- A revise becomes a revised submission plus a change letter, re-read — generally by the original reviewers — for a second notification of accept / reject within the cycle.
- Accepted papers publish open access on OpenProceedings.org (CC-BY-NC-ND). Earlier-cycle acceptances present at that year's conference; last-cycle acceptances roll to the next edition.
Reading a decision against the categories
| Decision | What it means | Author move |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Contribution and evaluation hold; minor polish only | Camera-ready + artifact; do not reopen scope |
| Revise | Repairable gaps: a missing baseline, an unconvincing scale, an unclear mechanism | Treat as an in-cycle R&R: make or explicitly decline every request, evidenced |
| Reject | Structural: wrong problem framing, unfair or missing evaluation, thin contribution | Reframe or reroute (SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE/ICDT or a journal); remember the 12-month EDBT ban |
The strategic reading: write the initial submission so that whatever is weakest is fixable inside the in-cycle revision window (a baseline you can add, a scale you can extend, a mechanism you can clarify) rather than structural (an evaluation you cannot redo in the cycle). The process rewards repairable papers.
How EDBT differs from its siblings
- vs. SIGMOD / ICDE: those publish in the paywalled ACM DL / IEEE Xplore and run their own cycle structures; EDBT's identity is the OpenProceedings open-access record and the three-cycle rolling cadence. Never assume a shared calendar or template.
- vs. VLDB / PVLDB: PVLDB is a journal-style monthly pipeline with its own revision mechanics; EDBT's revise-and-resubmit is bounded inside a discrete cycle, not a rolling monthly journal.
- vs. ICDT (the co-located sibling): ICDT reviews theory on its own call and PC; sharing a conference week and the OpenProceedings platform does not make them one process. An EDBT paper is judged by DB-systems reviewers, not theory reviewers.
Show full SKILL.md (281 more words)Show less
Who reads you
Expect several database-systems reviewers. They look for a real data-management problem, a mechanism described precisely enough to reimplement, an evaluation on real workloads at honest scale against tuned baselines, and a reproducible artifact. For an Experiments & Analysis paper the bar is higher on the measurement itself: methodology, coverage, and repeatability are the contribution.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] subject-area tags + cycle choice -> reviewer pool + timing (largest lever)
[Author feedback] factual corrections, targeted clarifications, misread fixes
[Revise] the strongest lever: a revised paper + point-by-point change letter,
re-read by the same reviewers inside the cycle
[After reject] no appeal; reroute to a sibling venue or journal, and mind the 12-month banA response moves borderline papers when it corrects a factual misreading or supplies a measurement a reviewer said was missing; it does not move papers when it argues taste. In a revise, silent omissions — a requested change neither made nor explicitly declined with a reason — are what turn the second read into a rejection.
Reading a review packet
Weight reviews before answering. A review that cites your figures, tables, and configuration was read closely and will be read closely again in the revision — its author is your likely advocate if the changes hold. A review that discusses only novelty has left soundness and reproducibility to the others; answer each reviewer on the axis they raised. Reviewers often end with an explicit request list; the revision is scored heavily on whether each request got a direct, evidenced answer.
Misreadings to avoid
- Treating a revise as a guaranteed accept — the in-cycle second read is real; budget the revision window like a deadline.
- Treating the author-feedback phase as the whole game — it is short and decision-focused; the revision carries the real argument.
- Assuming the last cycle presents this year — it rolls to the next edition.
- Confusing EDBT and ICDT reviewing — separate calls, separate PCs, despite the joint week.
- Projecting last year's cadence — cycle count and per-cycle timing are decided per edition.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / author-feedback / revise / final / accepted
[Cycle] which cycle, presents at <edition/year>
[Decision category] accept / revise / reject, with the criterion driving it
[Criterion map] each review point -> significance | soundness | evaluation | reproducibility | clarity
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] unsupported new claims / (if double-blind) identity leak© 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 EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Edbt 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edbt Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.6k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Arize Evaluatorgithub/awesome-copilot | 40k | 1 repos | ~8.1k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| LLM Evaluationdavila7/claude-code-templates | 33k | 12 repos | ~3.5k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Agent Evaluationsickn33/agentic-awesome-skills | 47k | 1 repos | ~2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Deepseek Reasonruvnet/ruflo | 74k | — | ~626 | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| EvaluatorsArize-ai/phoenix | 12k | — | ~1.7k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence |
Similar skills
- Official
LLM Evaluation
davila7/claude-code-templates
Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.
Agent Evaluation
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Evaluate agent behavior with versioned cases and explicit verifiers.
Deepseek Reason
ruvnet/ruflo
Reasoning-mode completion against DeepSeek's deepseek-reasoner model (R1) via /v1/chat/completions.
Evaluators
Arize-ai/phoenix
Author or refine a Phoenix evaluator — code or LLM-as-a-judge — that scores a run's output.
Agent Evaluation Reporting
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
A skill your agent uses when summarizing agent evaluations where autonomous, assisted, failed, timed-out, or invalid outcomes must remain distinct and comparable.
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 Edbt Review Process
What does Edbt Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the…. Edbt Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit second read by the original reviewers, the cycle-to-conference roll, and how EDBT's rolling model differs from SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and the co-located ICDT.
When should I use Edbt Review Process?
Edbt Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated; covering Microsoft CMT reviewing; the author-feedback phase; the accept / revise / reject decision.
How do I install Edbt Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill edbt-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/edbt-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Edbt Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill edbt-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/edbt-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Edbt 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 edbt-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/edbt-review-process, .gemini/skills/edbt-review-process, .github/skills/edbt-review-process and .opencode/skills/edbt-review-process in your project.
What does Edbt Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Edbt Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Edbt 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 Edbt 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 Edbt Review Process use?
Edbt 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 Edbt Review Process use?
About 1.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 6.5k 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 Edbt Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Edbt Review Process: Arize Evaluator (github/awesome-copilot, 40k stars), LLM Evaluation (davila7/claude-code-templates, 33k stars), Agent Evaluation (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars) and Deepseek Reason (ruvnet/ruflo, 74k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Edbt 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.