Ieee Symposium On Foundations Of Computer Science
franklee16/academic-research-skills
A skill your agent uses when targeting IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue.
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Focs Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill focs-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills focs-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/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process .claude/skills/focs-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 "focs-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process into .claude/skills/focs-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "focs-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/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-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 focs-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills focs-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/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process .agents/skills/focs-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 "focs-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process into .agents/skills/focs-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "focs-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 focs-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills focs-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/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process .cursor/skills/focs-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 "focs-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process into .cursor/skills/focs-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "focs-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 FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-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 focs-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills focs-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/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process .gemini/skills/focs-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 "focs-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process into .gemini/skills/focs-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "focs-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 focs-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 focs-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/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process .github/skills/focs-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 "focs-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process into .github/skills/focs-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "focs-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 focs-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 focs-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/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process .opencode/skills/focs-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 "focs-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process into .opencode/skills/focs-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "focs-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
focs-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.6k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 809 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 a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation…
- Works in 3 steps: Is it correct? Verified by depth readers… → Does it move the field? The… → Would the program be poorer without it?…
- Subreferee delegation
- SKILL.md covers Pipeline anatomy (April →…, What the committee optimizes, Double-blind, the FOCS way and How authors can (and cannot)…, plus 3 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
What it does
Focs Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation, double-blind norms the venue adopted years before STOC, the summer decision arc, and what each outcome means for a theory paper.
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
- Subreferee delegation
- Double-blind norms the venue adopted years before STOC
- The summer decision arc
- What each outcome means for a theory paper
Example prompts
- “/focs-review-process”
Workflow steps
3 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.
- Is it correct? Verified by depth readers on the proofs that matter;
- Does it move the field? The consequence/obstacle case from
- Would the program be poorer without it? The comparative question that
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
Focs Review Process loads about 1.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 81 tokens; SKILL.md has 809 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). 809 words, ~1,633 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/focs-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- focs-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation, double-blind norms the venue adopted years before STOC, the summer decision arc, and what each outcome means for a theory paper.
FOCS Review Process
FOCS reviewing is run by a program committee assembled per edition under IEEE Computer Society TCMF sponsorship — for FOCS 2026, chaired by Sanjeev Khanna (CFP checked 2026-07-08). There is no standing editorial board and no multi-year continuity of policy: each cycle's CFP is the constitution, and each PC interprets it once. This skill models the pipeline so authors can predict it rather than be surprised by it.
Pipeline anatomy (April → summer, 2026 cycle)
| Stage | Who | What actually happens |
|---|---|---|
| Assignment | PC chair + conflict data | Papers matched to 2–4 PC members using HotCRP topics and your conflict declarations — errors here trace back to sloppy metadata |
| Expert consultation | PC members → subreferees | A PC member covering a distant subarea recruits the specialist your paper needs; assume at least one reader knows the area's folklore |
| Reading under the window rule | Everyone | Breadth readers judge from abstract + references + ten pages; depth readers verify targeted proofs (focs-supplementary) |
| Committee discussion | Full PC (online and/or meeting) | Papers argued comparatively across all of TCS; the champion model dominates — someone must want your paper in |
| Decision | PC | Notification date for 2026: 待核实 (not published at check time; historically midsummer) |
No author-response round appears in the FOCS 2026 CFP, and none is
traditional at this venue (whether any PC-initiated clarification contact
occurs in 2026: 待核实). The practical consequence is architectural: your
submission is your entire side of the conversation (focs-author-response).
What the committee optimizes
A flagship theory PC comparing ~85% of submissions for rejection converges on three questions:
- Is it correct? Verified by depth readers on the proofs that matter; papers with one delicate lemma and a clean overview get that lemma read hard. Unverifiable-as-written proofs draw "cannot confirm the main claim," which functions as rejection regardless of significance.
- Does it move the field? The consequence/obstacle case from
focs-topic-selection, judged by breadth readers who will not decode subarea-internal significance on their own. - Would the program be poorer without it? The comparative question that kills technically-fine papers: a correct, novel, small step loses its slot to a flawed-but-fertile idea more often than authors expect.
Double-blind, the FOCS way
FOCS moved to double-blind years before its ACM sibling — the 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 CFPs all mandate it (first double-blind edition: 待核实), with consistent purpose language: enabling an unbiased initial judgment, while accepting that determined identification (e.g., via the arXiv full version) remains possible. Implications for authors:
- Reviewers are instructed not to hold public preprints against anonymity; keep posting to arXiv/ECCC.
- The bar is on your prose and metadata, not on the world's knowledge
(
focs-submissionhas the sweep). - Subreferees also receive anonymized papers; a "who else could have proved this" guess by an expert is tolerated by design, not a policy failure.
Show full SKILL.md (355 more words)Show less
How authors can (and cannot) shape the process
The levers are all pre-deadline: topic selections and conflict declarations
steer assignment (focs-submission); the ten-page window determines what
breadth readers know; self-flagged delicate lemmas direct depth readers'
hours to where scrutiny helps you (a checked hard lemma is a champion's
strongest argument). After the deadline there are no levers — no response
round, no supplementary uploads, no revised versions. The corresponding
anti-levers: an overclaimed abstract poisons the committee's trust in
everything else; a proof the depth reader cannot verify converts a champion
into a skeptic; and any attempt to reach reviewers socially is a reportable
breach in a community small enough that it will be recognized.
Interpreting outcomes
ACCEPT -> execute focs-camera-ready; full version public before talk
REJECT, reviews -> triage comments into: correctness findings (fix before
substantive any resubmission), significance findings (usually means
re-aim the framing or the venue), window findings
("couldn't find X" = your p.1-10 failed, not the reviewer)
REJECT, thin -> common at flagship scale; carries almost no information
reviews about the paper's worth — decide the next venue on your
own significance audit, not on two sentencesThe venue's rhythm gives every rejected FOCS paper an immediate second life: the STOC deadline arrives in autumn, SODA and ITCS deadlines cluster nearby, and the arXiv version keeps the result claimable throughout. A FOCS rejection delays a strong theory result by months, not years — plan accordingly rather than appealing, since no formal appeals process exists at this venue (any genuine procedural irregularity goes to the PC chair, once, politely).
Reading the reviews you eventually receive
Whether reviews accompany the decision, and in what depth, varies by cycle (2026 practice: 待核实). When they arrive, decode them by reviewer role rather than by score:
- A breadth review that misstates your result is data about your first ten pages, not about the reviewer — the window failed its one job.
- A depth review engaging specific lemmas is the most valuable free
refereeing your paper will ever get; mine it fully before any
resubmission (
focs-author-responsehas the memo protocol). - A short review with high confidence usually means a subreferee's verdict compressed by the PC member who commissioned it; the terseness carries no signal about care taken.
Calibration notes
- Acceptance statistics vary by cycle and are not published in the CFP; do not quote a rate without a per-year source (待核实).
- Award decisions (Best Paper, Machtey Award for best student paper) are made
by the PC from the accepted pool; nothing in the submission process asks
you to apply — eligibility hygiene is covered in
focs-camera-ready.
© 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 FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Focs 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focs Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.6k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Ieee Symposium On Foundations Of Computer Sciencefranklee16/academic-research-skills | 223 | 1 repos | ~1.9k | Automated safety check: Pass | None | |
| Deepseek Reasonruvnet/ruflo | 74k | — | ~626 | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Motion Foundationsaffaan-m/ECC | 276k | 1 repos | ~2.4k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Ejentum Reasoning Harnesssickn33/agentic-awesome-skills | 47k | 1 repos | ~1.9k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Ieee Symposium On Security And Privacyfranklee16/academic-research-skills | 223 | 1 repos | ~1.9k | Automated safety check: Pass | None |
Similar skills
Deepseek Reason
ruvnet/ruflo
Reasoning-mode completion against DeepSeek's deepseek-reasoner model (R1) via /v1/chat/completions.
Motion Foundations
affaan-m/ECC
Motion tokens, spring presets, performance rules, device adaptation, accessibility enforcement, and SSR safety for React / Next.js using motion/react.
Ejentum Reasoning Harness
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
MCP server exposing four cognitive harness modes (reasoning, code, anti-deception, memory).
Ieee Symposium On Security And Privacy
franklee16/academic-research-skills
A skill your agent uses when targeting IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE S&P) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue.
Foundation Models On Device
affaan-m/ECC
Apple FoundationModels framework for on-device LLM — text generation, guided generation with @Generable, tool calling, and snapshot streaming in iOS 26+.
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 Focs Review Process
What does Focs Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation…. Focs Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation, double-blind norms the venue adopted years before STOC, the summer decision arc, and what each outcome means for a theory paper.
When should I use Focs Review Process?
Focs Review Process fits situations like: subreferee delegation; double-blind norms the venue adopted years before STOC; the summer decision arc; what each outcome means for a theory paper.
How do I install Focs Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill focs-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/focs-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Focs Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill focs-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (FOCS-Skills/skills/focs-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/focs-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Focs 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 focs-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/focs-review-process, .gemini/skills/focs-review-process, .github/skills/focs-review-process and .opencode/skills/focs-review-process in your project.
What does Focs Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Focs Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Focs 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 Focs 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 Focs Review Process use?
Focs 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 Focs 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 Focs Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Focs Review Process: Ieee Symposium On Foundations Of Computer Science (franklee16/academic-research-skills, 223 stars), Deepseek Reason (ruvnet/ruflo, 74k stars), Motion Foundations (affaan-m/ECC, 276k stars) and Ejentum Reasoning Harness (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Focs 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.