New: 98,000+ skills indexed from GitHub repos with 100+ stars · every skill safety-checkedBrowse top skillsTop skills
Esc to closeBrowse all skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills

Agent skill

Hri Review Process

by brycewang-stanford in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

A skill your agent uses to understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment, the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers, the…

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Hri Review Process

skills CLI
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill hri-review-process -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills hri-review-process --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/HRI-Skills/skills/hri-review-process .claude/skills/hri-review-process && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.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/

Facts

Skill name
hri-review-process
GitHub stars
1.2k
Token cost
~1.4k tokens
SKILL.md length
691 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
2,387
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

A skill your agent uses to understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment, the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers, the…

  • Works in 7 steps: Initial check (desk stage).… → Assignment. Each paper is assigned… → Reviewing. The three externals write… → …
  • Understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment
  • SKILL.md covers The pipeline, stage by stage, What reviewers are told to value, Where author leverage actually… and Calibrating your expectations, plus 3 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Hri Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use to understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment, the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers, the double-blind two-phase model, the author rebuttal, the online reviewer discussion, the program-committee meeting, and the per-track subcommittees — and to see where author leverage exists.

Its SKILL.md is about 1.4k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Research & Science, covering Peer review. 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

  • Understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment
  • The 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers
  • The double-blind two-phase model
  • The author rebuttal

Example prompts

  • “/hri-review-process”

Workflow steps

7 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Initial check (desk stage). Program-Committee Chairs, Track Chairs, and Area Chairs screen
  2. Assignment. Each paper is assigned within its track/subcommittee to a **1AC (primary area
  3. Reviewing. The three externals write reviews; the ACs read the paper and the reviews. So a
  4. Rebuttal (phase two for authors). Authors receive the reviews and submit one rebuttal
  5. Discussion. After the rebuttal, the 1AC leads an online discussion among the reviewers,
  6. Program-committee meeting. The PC meets to make final decisions, with the ACs championing or
  7. Decision (HRI 2026: December). Some editions may use light shepherding/conditional acceptance

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

Hri Review Process loads about 1.4k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 94 tokens; SKILL.md has 691 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~94
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.4k

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). 691 words, ~1,420 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/hri-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
hri-review-process
description
Use to understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment, the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers, the double-blind two-phase model, the author rebuttal, the online reviewer discussion, the program-committee meeting, and the per-track subcommittees — and to see where author leverage exists.

HRI Review Process

Understanding HRI's pipeline tells you where your effort actually moves the outcome. HRI runs a double-blind, two-phase review with a real rebuttal and a program-committee meeting — closer to a rigorous conference model than to a journal R&R, but with a discussion culture that gives the rebuttal genuine weight. Contribution-typed subcommittees mean your paper is judged by reviewers matched to its track. This skill models the pipeline; hri-author-response covers writing the rebuttal. Mechanics below are the HRI 2026 cycle (see resources/official-source-map.md).

The pipeline, stage by stage

  1. Initial check (desk stage). Program-Committee Chairs, Track Chairs, and Area Chairs screen submissions for desk rejections (over length, anonymity violations, out of scope) and track changes (moving a paper to a better-fitting subcommittee). Clearing this stage is entirely in your control — see hri-submission.
  2. Assignment. Each paper is assigned within its track/subcommittee to a 1AC (primary area chair) and a 2AC (secondary). The 1AC recruits three external reviewers — experts in the topic who are not on the program committee.
  3. Reviewing. The three externals write reviews; the ACs read the paper and the reviews. So a typical paper has three external reviews plus two AC perspectives.
  4. Rebuttal (phase two for authors). Authors receive the reviews and submit one rebuttal (HRI 2026: due ~12 Nov 2025), addressing misunderstandings, factual errors, and specific concerns.
  5. Discussion. After the rebuttal, the 1AC leads an online discussion among the reviewers, who may revise scores in light of the rebuttal and each other's points.
  6. Program-committee meeting. The PC meets to make final decisions, with the ACs championing or critiquing papers based on reviews, rebuttal, and discussion.
  7. Decision (HRI 2026: December). Some editions may use light shepherding/conditional acceptance (待核实 per cycle). There is no in-cycle major-revision round — a reject is a reject for that edition.

What reviewers are told to value

HRI reviewer guidance steers toward impact over polish: reviewers are asked to favor slightly flawed but impactful work over perfectly executed but low-impact work, and to judge the paper as the contribution type of its track (a Design paper by design criteria, a User Studies paper by study rigor, and so on). The reviewer form asks reviewers to identify the paper's key findings and claimed contribution and to assess how well the evidence supports them. Write so those are effortless to state — an ambiguous contribution is a reviewing risk.

Show full SKILL.md (295 more words)Show less

Where author leverage actually is

  • Before submission (highest leverage): clear the desk check, pick the right track, make the contribution and its evidence unmistakable, and include an anonymized video. Most outcomes are set here.
  • The rebuttal (real, bounded leverage): because reviewers discuss and can move scores after the rebuttal, a focused rebuttal that corrects a genuine misreading or a factual error routinely changes decisions. It is not a formality. See hri-author-response.
  • You cannot influence: AC/reviewer assignment, the discussion you do not see, or the PC-meeting debate. Do not waste the rebuttal arguing with tone; fix what a reviewer can act on.

Calibrating your expectations

  • HRI is highly selective — recent editions accepted roughly a quarter of full-paper submissions (HRI 2025 reported ~100/400 ≈ 25%; HRI 2024 ~24.7%; treat exact figures as reported, 待核实 to the official program). A strong paper still faces a hard bar.
  • Three externals + two ACs means disagreement is normal; a split (e.g., two positive, one negative) is common and is exactly where the rebuttal and discussion decide the paper.
  • Best-paper awards are given per track, so excellence is judged within your contribution type, not across the whole conference.

Reading your reviews

  • Separate fatal concerns (a design confound, an unsupported central claim, an ethics gap) from fixable ones (a missing citation, a clarification, an added analysis you can describe).
  • Identify each reviewer's decisive objection — the one thing that, if resolved, flips them — and aim the rebuttal there.
  • Note where reviewers disagree; the rebuttal can help the discussion resolve the split in your favor by giving the sympathetic reviewer ammunition.

Reverify each cycle

  • Reviewer/AC counts (3 externals + 1AC/2AC is the recent norm) and the desk-check ownership.
  • Whether the edition uses shepherding/conditional acceptance.
  • Rebuttal timing, length, and whether referencing new results is allowed (待核实).

Output format

text
[Stage] where the paper is: desk-check / reviewing / rebuttal / discussion / PC-meeting / decided
[Reviewer picture] 3 externals + 1AC/2AC · scores/split summarized
[Decisive objections] per reviewer, the one thing that flips them
[Leverage] what the rebuttal can realistically move here
[Track] judged as which contribution type · award eligibility per track
[Next action] <ordered>

© 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 HRI-Skills/skills/hri-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23

Compare with similar skills

Hri 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.

Hri Review Process compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Hri Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.2k—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Peer Reviewspacering-net/codeg3.9k17 repos~5.9kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Scholar Evaluationspacering-net/codeg3.9k11 repos~3.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~16kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Academic Paper ReviewerImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~11kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer2.4k2 repos~3.1kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT

Similar skills

  • Peer Review

    spacering-net/codeg

    Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 17 repos~5.9k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes

  • Scholar Evaluation

    spacering-net/codeg

    Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and…

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 11 repos~3.2k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Academic Paper Writing Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Runs a 12-agent pipeline that plans, drafts, cites, reviews and formats academic papers, with modes for revision, rebuttals, abstracts and citation checks.

    51k GitHub stars~16k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Academic Paper Reviewer

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Simulates a journal peer review of a manuscript with a five-seat reviewer panel, an editorial synthesizer and several review modes.

    51k GitHub stars~11k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Peer Review

    K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer

    Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.

    2.4k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.1k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes

  • Academic Research Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Orchestrates a ten-stage academic workflow from research to finished manuscript, including integrity checks, two rounds of peer review and revision.

    51k GitHub stars~15k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

More from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

All 2,387 skills in this repo

  • Aaag 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…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 13 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • 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…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 13 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • 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…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 13 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • 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…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 13 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • 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…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 13 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • 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…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 13 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Hri Review Process

What does Hri Review Process do?

A skill your agent uses to understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment, the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers, the…. Hri Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use to understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment, the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers, the double-blind two-phase model, the author rebuttal, the online reviewer discussion, the program-committee meeting, and the per-track subcommittees — and to see where author leverage exists.

When should I use Hri Review Process?

Hri Review Process fits situations like: understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment; the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers; the double-blind two-phase model; the author rebuttal.

How do I install Hri Review Process in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill hri-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (HRI-Skills/skills/hri-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/hri-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Hri Review Process in Codex?

Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill hri-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (HRI-Skills/skills/hri-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/hri-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Hri 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 hri-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/hri-review-process, .gemini/skills/hri-review-process, .github/skills/hri-review-process and .opencode/skills/hri-review-process in your project.

What does Hri Review Process need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Hri Review Process is instructions for the agent only.

Does Hri 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 Hri 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 Hri Review Process use?

Hri 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 Hri Review Process use?

About 1.4k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 5.7k 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 Hri Review Process?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Hri Review Process: Peer Review (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Scholar Evaluation (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Academic Paper Writing Pipeline (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars) and Academic Paper Reviewer (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Hri 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.