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 IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Infocom Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill infocom-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills infocom-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/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process .claude/skills/infocom-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 "infocom-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process into .claude/skills/infocom-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "infocom-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/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-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 infocom-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills infocom-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/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process .agents/skills/infocom-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 "infocom-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process into .agents/skills/infocom-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "infocom-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 infocom-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills infocom-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/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process .cursor/skills/infocom-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 "infocom-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process into .cursor/skills/infocom-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "infocom-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 INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-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 infocom-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills infocom-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/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process .gemini/skills/infocom-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 "infocom-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process into .gemini/skills/infocom-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "infocom-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 infocom-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 infocom-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/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process .github/skills/infocom-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 "infocom-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process into .github/skills/infocom-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "infocom-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 infocom-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 infocom-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/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process .opencode/skills/infocom-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 "infocom-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process into .opencode/skills/infocom-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "infocom-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
infocom-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.5k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 667 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 IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and…
- Reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated
- SKILL.md covers Process model, Reading a decision against the…, How INFOCOM differs from its… and Who reads you, plus 3 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
- Covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline
What it does
Infocom Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and early-reject phase, the (traditional) absence of an author rebuttal, TPC discussion, and how INFOCOM's process differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI rebuttal-driven reviewing.
Its SKILL.md is about 1.5k 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 IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated
- Covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline
- Automated paper-reviewer assignment
- The two-tier TPC and early-reject phase
Example prompts
- “/infocom-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
Infocom Review Process loads about 1.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 91 tokens; SKILL.md has 667 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). 667 words, ~1,478 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/infocom-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- infocom-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and early-reject phase, the (traditional) absence of an author rebuttal, TPC discussion, and how INFOCOM's process differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI rebuttal-driven reviewing.
INFOCOM Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. INFOCOM's process is large-scale and TPC-driven: thousands of submissions are matched to a broad Technical Program Committee by an automated assignment system, screened through an early-reject phase, and decided in TPC discussion. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from SIGCOMM/NSDI is that INFOCOM has traditionally offered no author rebuttal — the submitted PDF must defend itself, because you likely never get a turn to reply.
Process model
- Submission and review run on EDAS with double-blind anonymity: identities are hidden from reviewers throughout.
- Automated review assignment matches each manuscript to TPC members by comparing the paper's content to reviewers' representative publications. Your topic tags and abstract are the levers that route you to the right subarea — a mis-tagged paper lands with reviewers who read it as a visitor.
- Early-reject phase. INFOCOM 2027 posts an early-reject notification (9 Oct 2026) weeks before the final acceptance notification (8 Dec 2026). Papers that are out of scope, violate the double-blind/length rules, or draw uniformly weak initial scores are cut here without reaching the full discussion.
- TPC discussion and final decision (INFOCOM 2026: 8 Dec 2025). Surviving papers are debated by the assigned TPC members, often with an area/vice chair moderating, and accepted or rejected.
- Accepted papers publish in the IEEE INFOCOM Proceedings and IEEE Xplore.
Reading a decision against the categories
| Decision | What it means | Author move |
|---|---|---|
| Early reject | Screened out before full discussion: scope, compliance, or uniformly low scores | Do not appeal; diagnose honestly and reroute or substantially rework |
| Reject (final) | Survived the screen but lost in discussion: a real weakness the reviewers agreed on | Reframe or reroute (SIGCOMM/NSDI/ICNP or a journal); fix the named weakness before resubmitting |
| Accept | Contribution and evidence hold | Camera-ready + IEEE Xplore production; register an author |
Because there is usually no rebuttal, the strategic reading runs before submission: anticipate the reviewer's first objection (an untuned baseline, an unstated assumption, a proof gap) and close it in the PDF, since you will not get to close it in a reply.
Show full SKILL.md (325 more words)Show less
How INFOCOM differs from its siblings
- vs. SIGCOMM / NSDI: those are small, highly selective ACM/USENIX venues with a rebuttal and a systems-building, artifact-heavy culture. INFOCOM is large, IEEE, double-blind on EDAS, with automated assignment, an early-reject screen, and (traditionally) no rebuttal — and it welcomes analytical/optimization contributions that SIGCOMM often routes elsewhere.
- vs. ICNP: ICNP is a smaller IEEE protocols venue; INFOCOM's breadth and scale are its identity. Do not assume a shared reviewer pool or timeline.
- vs. IEEE/ACM ToN or JSAC: the journals have no page ceiling and a revise-and-resubmit cycle; INFOCOM is a single-shot conference decision with a hard nine-page budget. A study too long or too incremental for INFOCOM's page limit may belong in the journal.
Who reads you
Expect a handful of TPC reviewers drawn by the assignment system from your declared subarea. In a broad venue they may span pure theory to pure systems, so a paper must be legible to both: an optimization result needs an intuition and a plausible deployment story; a systems result needs its assumptions and a fair comparison. Vague method descriptions and unfair baselines are the classic INFOCOM rejects — reviewers in a crowded pool reward papers that are easy to check and hard to dismiss.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] topic tags + abstract -> reviewer pool via automated assignment (largest lever)
[In the PDF] pre-empt the obvious objection; the paper is your only argument
[Early-reject stage] no appeal; treat the cut as signal, not noise
[After reject] no rebuttal existed to blame; fix the named weakness, reroute or resubmit next cycle
[If a cycle adds a response window] answer only the decision-critical, verifiable points (待核实)Since the traditional process gives no reply turn, the highest-leverage move is defensive writing: the threats to a claim, the assumption behind a theorem, and the fairness of a baseline must all be visible in the submitted pages.
Misreadings to avoid
- Expecting a rebuttal. Do not hold back an answer "for the response" — there usually is none (verify the current cycle; 待核实).
- Treating early-reject as a fluke. It is a deliberate screen; a uniform low score means the paper did not read as INFOCOM-ready.
- Under-tagging the topic. The automated assignment is only as good as your metadata; wrong tags route you to the wrong readers.
- Assuming SIGCOMM norms. Artifact-heavy, rebuttal-driven expectations do not transfer.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / under review / early-reject / final decision / accepted
[Decision category] early-reject / reject / accept, with the criterion driving it
[Assignment risk] do topic tags + abstract route to the right subarea? yes/no
[Defensive-writing gaps] <objections to pre-empt in the PDF, since no rebuttal>
[If response window exists] <the decision-critical points to answer (待核实 the window itself)>© 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 INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Infocom 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infocom Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.5k | 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 Infocom Review Process
What does Infocom Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and…. Infocom Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and early-reject phase, the (traditional) absence of an author rebuttal, TPC discussion, and how INFOCOM's process differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI rebuttal-driven reviewing.
When should I use Infocom Review Process?
Infocom Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated; covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline; automated paper-reviewer assignment; the two-tier TPC and early-reject phase.
How do I install Infocom Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill infocom-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/infocom-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Infocom Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill infocom-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (INFOCOM-Skills/skills/infocom-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/infocom-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Infocom 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 infocom-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/infocom-review-process, .gemini/skills/infocom-review-process, .github/skills/infocom-review-process and .opencode/skills/infocom-review-process in your project.
What does Infocom Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Infocom Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Infocom 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 Infocom 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 Infocom Review Process use?
Infocom 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 Infocom Review Process use?
About 1.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 5.9k 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 Infocom Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Infocom 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 Infocom 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.