Sandbox Bench
vercel/next.js
Benchmark React or Next.js changes on Vercel Sandbox VMs with paired A/B statistics: react PR/commit vs base, or Next.js PR/commit vs base, measured end-to-end through the bench/render-pipeline app…
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025…
Install Iccv Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill iccv-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills iccv-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/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process .claude/skills/iccv-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 "iccv-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process into .claude/skills/iccv-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "iccv-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/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-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 iccv-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills iccv-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/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process .agents/skills/iccv-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 "iccv-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process into .agents/skills/iccv-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "iccv-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 iccv-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills iccv-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/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process .cursor/skills/iccv-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 "iccv-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process into .cursor/skills/iccv-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "iccv-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 ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-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 iccv-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills iccv-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/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process .gemini/skills/iccv-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 "iccv-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process into .gemini/skills/iccv-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "iccv-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 iccv-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 iccv-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/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process .github/skills/iccv-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 "iccv-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process into .github/skills/iccv-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "iccv-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 iccv-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 iccv-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/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process .opencode/skills/iccv-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 "iccv-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process into .opencode/skills/iccv-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "iccv-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
iccv-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.6k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 720 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 ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025…
- Reasoning about ICCVs review pipeline and where authors have leverage
- SKILL.md covers Pipeline at a glance (2025…, Enforcement, with 2025 receipts, The LLM line and What the decision distribution…, plus 4 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
- Covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline
What it does
Iccv Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement, the reviewer LLM prohibition, decision statistics at 24% acceptance, oral and Highlight tiers, and the post-decision Findings outlet.
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.
It sits in Data & Analytics, covering Statistics. 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 ICCVs review pipeline and where authors have leverage
- Covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline
- The every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement
- The reviewer LLM prohibition
Example prompts
- “/iccv-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
Iccv Review Process loads about 1.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 89 tokens; SKILL.md has 720 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). 720 words, ~1,589 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/iccv-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- iccv-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement, the reviewer LLM prohibition, decision statistics at 24% acceptance, oral and Highlight tiers, and the post-decision Findings outlet.
ICCV Review Process
This models what happened to a paper inside the ICCV 2025 pipeline — the most recent completed cycle, verified 2026-07-08 — and what an author can and cannot influence at each stage. The 2027 chairs may restructure any of it (待核实 once the Hong Kong cycle posts its pages).
Pipeline at a glance (2025 anchors)
Mar 3 registration closes (abstract, authors, profiles)
Mar 7 paper + supplement due (one event, 11:59pm HST)
Mar–May assignment and reviewing; authors serve as reviewers in parallel
May 9 reviews released to authors
May 10–16 one-page rebuttal window
May–Jun reviewer/AC discussion and meta-review (authors silent)
late Jun decisions (2025 statistics: 11,239 valid submissions,
2,699 accepted, 24%)
Oct 19–23 conference, Honolulu (workshops 19–20, main program 21–23)Between March and May the same lab members are usually on both sides of the table, because ICCV 2025 required every author to review unless exempted (exemptions covered people new to or outside the vision community). Model your own reviewers accordingly: they are authors from the same submission wave, mostly competent, uniformly overloaded, and reading your paper between their own rebuttal-week anxieties.
Enforcement, with 2025 receipts
The distinctive fact about ICCV review is that reviewer accountability is enforced against authored papers, and 2025 published the outcome rather than the threat:
- 25 reviewers were classified as highly irresponsible;
- 29 papers they authored were desk-rejected as a consequence;
- 12 of those papers had been slated for acceptance.
"Highly irresponsible" was defined with examples: one-sentence reviews, reviews generated by an LLM, reviews irrelevant to the paper, reviews ignoring substantial parts of it. Missing the review deadline outright carried the same desk-reject consequence. Author-side takeaways: pick coauthors' review weeks into the project calendar, have first-time reviewers' drafts read by someone senior, and treat a coauthor who "will get to the reviews later" as a risk to every paper you share.
The LLM line
Reviewers were prohibited from using LLMs to write reviews — locally or via API — and LLM-written reviews were named in the irresponsible-behavior list. For you as an author this cuts two ways:
| Side | Rule | Practical move |
|---|---|---|
| Your duty as reviewer-author | No LLM-drafted reviews; no feeding substantial paper content to models | Write reviews yourself; a violation risks your own submissions |
| Your paper receiving reviews | An LLM-flavored review (generic praise, hallucinated citations, wrong paper details) is a policy violation by the reviewer | Document the evidence and flag it through the official channel (confidential comment / chairs contact), never in the public rebuttal's tone |
What the decision distribution looked like
Acceptance at 24% came in tiers. Community trackers reported orals at roughly half a percent of submissions and 263 Highlight papers among the acceptances — treat tier counts as reported rather than officially re-verified. The tiering means the discussion phase is not deciding accept/reject alone; it is also ranking. A rebuttal that converts a reviewer from "weak accept" to advocate does double work.
Reading your reviews as data:
- Convergent factual objection (all reviewers name the same missing baseline): the discussion phase will not save the paper; the fix is the next cycle's experiment plan.
- Divergent scores with one detailed negative: the AC weighs argument quality; a rebuttal that surgically refutes the detailed negative has real leverage.
- Uniform shrugs ("sound, limited novelty"): a framing failure — the mechanism
was not made to look inevitable. This is writing-side work
(
iccv-writing-style), not evidence-side. - A review that misdescribes the paper: quote it against the PDF in the rebuttal's first lines; misread-driven weaknesses collapse when named calmly.
Show full SKILL.md (210 more words)Show less
After the decision: the 2025-specific outlet
2025 introduced a Findings workshop for ICCV: papers rejected from or withdrawn during the main-conference review, judged technically sound with evidence-backed claims, could be submitted (June 30 deadline in 2025) and presented at a workshop in Honolulu. It explicitly did not take work still under review elsewhere or papers that had never been peer reviewed. If it recurs in 2027 (待核实), it changes rejection calculus: sound-but-unexciting papers gain an ICCV-week audience without waiting for ECCV. Weigh it against holding the work for a full resubmission — Findings publication may interact with later venues' dual-submission definitions, so read both CFPs first.
Where authors have zero leverage
Silence discipline matters at a venue with explicit misconduct rules: no emailing ACs or chairs to advocate, no hunting reviewer identities, no social-media campaigns about your scores while under embargo (media discussion of a paper under review is itself a violation that can remove the paper). The rebuttal PDF and the official confidential channels are the entire authorized surface.
Reverify each cycle
- Whether every-author enrollment, the exemption categories, and desk-reject enforcement carry into 2027.
- The rebuttal window's existence and length.
- Tier definitions (oral/Highlight ratios move with program capacity).
- Whether Findings runs again, and its relationship to dual-submission rules.
Output format
[Stage] submitted / in-review / rebuttal / discussion / decided
[Duty compliance] all reviewing coauthors on-time and substantive: yes/no/unknown
[Review diagnosis] per review: convergent-factual / divergent / shrug / misread
[Leverage plan] rebuttal targets ranked by winnability
[Policy flags] LLM-flavored review or misconduct evidence: <none or summary>
[If rejected] Findings-eligible? next-venue plan with dates© 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 ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Iccv 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iccv Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.6k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Sandbox Benchvercel/next.js | 143k | — | ~4.1k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Statistical Analysisspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 3 repos | ~5k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| StatsmodelszLanqing/codex-claude-academic-skills | 4.7k | 15 repos | ~4.9k | Automated safety check: Pass | BSD-3-Clause | |
| AI Daily DigestvigorX777/ai-daily-digest | 1.6k | — | ~1.3k | Automated safety check: Pass | None | |
| Statistical Powerspacering-net/codeg | 3.9k | 1 repos | ~3.6k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT |
Similar skills
- Official
Statistical Analysis
spacering-net/codeg
Guided statistical analysis for research data - test selection, assumption checking, effect sizes, power analysis, Bayesian alternatives, and APA-formatted reporting.
Statsmodels
zLanqing/codex-claude-academic-skills
Statistical models library for Python. An agent skill from zLanqing/codex-claude-academic-skills.
AI Daily Digest
vigorX777/ai-daily-digest
Fetches RSS feeds from 90 top Hacker News blogs (curated by Karpathy), uses AI to score and filter articles, and generates a daily digest in Markdown with Chinese-translated titles, category…
Statistical Power
spacering-net/codeg
Sample-size and statistical power calculations for planning studies.
Agent Session Monitor
higress-group/higress
Real-time agent conversation monitoring - monitors Higress access logs, aggregates conversations by session, tracks token usage.
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…
Related
Categories
Questions about Iccv Review Process
What does Iccv Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025…. Iccv Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement, the reviewer LLM prohibition, decision statistics at 24% acceptance, oral and Highlight tiers, and the post-decision Findings outlet.
When should I use Iccv Review Process?
Iccv Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about ICCVs review pipeline and where authors have leverage; covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline; the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement; the reviewer LLM prohibition.
How do I install Iccv Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill iccv-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/iccv-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Iccv Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill iccv-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (ICCV-Skills/skills/iccv-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/iccv-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Iccv 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 iccv-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/iccv-review-process, .gemini/skills/iccv-review-process, .github/skills/iccv-review-process and .opencode/skills/iccv-review-process in your project.
What does Iccv Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Iccv Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Iccv 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 Iccv 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 Iccv Review Process use?
Iccv 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 Iccv Review Process use?
About 1.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 6.4k 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 Iccv Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Iccv Review Process: Sandbox Bench (vercel/next.js, 143k stars), Statistical Analysis (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Statsmodels (zLanqing/codex-claude-academic-skills, 4.7k stars) and AI Daily Digest (vigorX777/ai-daily-digest, 1.6k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Iccv 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.