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 ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Icalp Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills icalp-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/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process .claude/skills/icalp-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 "icalp-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process into .claude/skills/icalp-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "icalp-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/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-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 icalp-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills icalp-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/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process .agents/skills/icalp-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 "icalp-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process into .agents/skills/icalp-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "icalp-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 icalp-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills icalp-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/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process .cursor/skills/icalp-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 "icalp-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process into .cursor/skills/icalp-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "icalp-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 ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-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 icalp-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills icalp-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/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process .gemini/skills/icalp-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 "icalp-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process into .gemini/skills/icalp-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "icalp-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 icalp-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 icalp-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/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process .github/skills/icalp-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 "icalp-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process into .github/skills/icalp-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "icalp-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 icalp-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 icalp-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/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process .opencode/skills/icalp-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 "icalp-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process into .opencode/skills/icalp-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "icalp-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
icalp-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.6k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 742 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 ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the…
- Reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated
- SKILL.md covers Process model, Reading a decision against the…, How ICALP differs from its US… and Who reads you, plus 4 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
- Covering lightweight double-blind review
What it does
Icalp Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.
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 ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated
- Covering lightweight double-blind review
- The separate Track A and Track B program committees
- The asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact)
Example prompts
- “/icalp-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
Icalp Review Process loads about 1.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 99 tokens; SKILL.md has 742 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). 742 words, ~1,587 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/icalp-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- icalp-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.
ICALP Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ICALP's process is conference-style and correctness-centered: a paper is accepted or rejected in one round (no journal-style major revision), and the reviewers' overriding job is to judge whether the theorems are significant and the proofs are correct. The most consequential thing to internalize is that the two tracks run different processes — Track B gives you a rebuttal, Track A generally does not.
Process model
- Submission and review run on HotCRP, on separate servers per track, under lightweight double-blind: identities are hidden for an unbiased first read, self-references are third person, but the regime is deliberately not adversarial about de-anonymization.
- Each paper is refereed by the track's program committee (often with sub-reviewers who are subject experts), who weigh the significance of the result, the correctness and depth of the proofs, the improvement over prior bounds, and clarity.
- Track A (Algorithms, Complexity and Games): chairs for ICALP 2026 are Sayan Bhattacharya and Danupon Nanongkai (reported). Authors are contacted only if a correctness issue must be resolved — otherwise there is no interaction.
- Track B (Automata, Logic, Semantics and Theory of Programming): chaired by Michael Benedikt (reported). There is a rebuttal period (ICALP 2026: 21-24 March) where authors respond to initial reviews.
- Decisions are accept / reject in one round; accepted papers publish open-access in LIPIcs.
Reading a decision against the criteria
| Decision | What it usually means | Author move |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Result significant, proofs judged correct, improvement over prior work is clear | Camera-ready in LIPIcs; post/refresh the full version; arrange a presenter |
| Reject (borderline) | Correct but incremental, or a proof gap the referees could not close in time | Strengthen or reframe; consider STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS or a journal (icalp-topic-selection) |
| Reject (structural) | A proof is wrong or the model/claim is off | Fix the mathematics before resubmitting anywhere; do not merely re-target |
The strategic reading: because there is no revision round, the submission must be correct and complete at deadline. A believable-but-unwritten proof is the classic ICALP rejection — reviewers cannot accept what they cannot check in the appendix or full version.
How ICALP differs from its US siblings
- vs. STOC / FOCS: those are ACM/IEEE flagships with their own PCs, templates, and calendars, and a US-centered community. ICALP is EATCS/European, LIPIcs open-access, and two-track. Prestige and pool differ; never assume a shared calendar or format.
- vs. SODA: SODA is SIAM's algorithms venue with a distinct community and its own reviewing style. ICALP Track A overlaps in scope but is a different program committee and audience.
- vs. journals: ICALP is single-round accept/reject, not revise-and-resubmit. There is no major revision; a paper that needs one belongs in a journal (LMCS, TALG, TCS, JACM) or a later cycle.
Show full SKILL.md (297 more words)Show less
Who reads you
Expect subject-matter referees for your specific subarea and track — a matroid result is read by someone who knows matroid intersection; a VASS result by someone who knows Petri nets. They will check the proofs, not skim them, which is exactly why the full version / appendix must be complete. A vague proof sketch with "details omitted" and no full version is caught, not trusted.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] track choice + clean model + complete proofs (largest lever)
[Track A] essentially none post-submission except a correctness clarification if asked
[Track B rebuttal] correct factual misreadings; point to the exact lemma answering an objection
[After reject] no appeal; reroute to a sibling venue or journal, having fixed the mathematicsFor Track B, a rebuttal moves a paper when it fixes a misread ("the reviewer thinks Lemma 4 needs X, but the hypothesis already gives it, see line ...") — not when it argues taste. For Track A, the lever is almost entirely before submission: get the proofs complete and the exposition clear, because you will likely not get to speak again.
Reading a review packet
Weight reviews by how closely the proof was read. A review that cites your lemma numbers and questions a specific step engaged the mathematics and is your most important reader — answer that step exactly (Track B) or make sure it is airtight (Track A). A review that discusses only novelty has left correctness to the others. Reviewers who flag a potential gap are giving you the single most important signal: if they are right, no rebuttal saves it; if they misread, a precise pointer to the proof can.
Misreadings to avoid
- Expecting a revision round — there is none; the submission is the artifact of record.
- Assuming a Track A rebuttal — Track A contacts you only for correctness; do not bank on responding.
- Treating "details in the full version" as sufficient without the full version — reviewers must be able to check the proof at submission time.
- Projecting a US-venue process onto ICALP — the two-track split and the rebuttal asymmetry are ICALP-specific.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / under review / Track B rebuttal / notified
[Track] A (correctness-contact only) / B (rebuttal)
[Decision criterion] significance / correctness / improvement-over-prior / clarity
[Proof-check risk] any headline theorem whose full proof a referee cannot currently verify?
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] shipping an unproved claim / arguing taste in a rebuttal© 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 ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Icalp 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Icalp 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 Icalp Review Process
What does Icalp Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the…. Icalp Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.
When should I use Icalp Review Process?
Icalp Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated; covering lightweight double-blind review; the separate Track A and Track B program committees; the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact).
How do I install Icalp Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/icalp-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Icalp Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/icalp-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Icalp 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 icalp-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/icalp-review-process, .gemini/skills/icalp-review-process, .github/skills/icalp-review-process and .opencode/skills/icalp-review-process in your project.
What does Icalp Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Icalp Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Icalp 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 Icalp 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 Icalp Review Process use?
Icalp 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 Icalp Review Process use?
About 1.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 6.3k 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 Icalp Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Icalp 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 Icalp 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.