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 ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Podc Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill podc-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills podc-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/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process .claude/skills/podc-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 "podc-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process into .claude/skills/podc-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "podc-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/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-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 podc-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills podc-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/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process .agents/skills/podc-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 "podc-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process into .agents/skills/podc-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "podc-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 podc-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills podc-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/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process .cursor/skills/podc-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 "podc-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process into .cursor/skills/podc-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "podc-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 PODC-Skills/skills/podc-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 podc-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills podc-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/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process .gemini/skills/podc-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 "podc-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process into .gemini/skills/podc-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "podc-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 podc-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 podc-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/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process .github/skills/podc-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 "podc-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process into .github/skills/podc-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "podc-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 podc-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 podc-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/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process .opencode/skills/podc-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 "podc-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process into .opencode/skills/podc-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "podc-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
podc-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.6k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 666 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 ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision…
- Reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review
- SKILL.md covers Process model, What a PODC reviewer actually…, How PODC differs from its… and Where author leverage actually…, plus 3 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
- A program committee that reads proofs
What it does
Podc Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round, the Brief Announcements track's lighter bar, and how PODC's process differs from DISC, SPAA, and the sequential-theory venues 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 ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review
- A program committee that reads proofs
- The accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round
- The Brief Announcements tracks lighter bar
Example prompts
- “s lighter bar, and how PODC”
- “/podc-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
Podc Review Process loads about 1.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 94 tokens; SKILL.md has 666 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). 666 words, ~1,567 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/podc-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- podc-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round, the Brief Announcements track's lighter bar, and how PODC's process differs from DISC, SPAA, and the sequential-theory venues STOC/FOCS/SODA.
PODC Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. PODC's process is proofs-first and single-shot: a specialized program committee reads your model and your proof, and the decision is accept or reject — there is no Major Revision, no journal-style R&R. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a software-engineering or ML venue is that there is no second read to fix a gap in; everything that would go into a revision must be in the initial submission.
Process model
- Submission and review run on HotCRP with lightweight double-blind anonymity: identities are hidden from reviewers (no author names/affiliations/emails in the submission), a change from PODC's historically single-blind practice.
- Each paper is read by program-committee members (often with external subreviewers for specific subareas) who weigh: the significance of the result, the correctness of the proof, the precision and honesty of the model/assumptions, novelty against known bounds, and clarity.
- The committee reads the abstract and the first 10 pages as guaranteed; deeper proofs are read
at its discretion — so the merits case must land in those pages (
podc-supplementary). - Decisions are accept / reject. Accepted regular papers publish in the ACM proceedings (≤10 pages); Brief Announcements (≤3 pages) are a separate, lighter-bar track.
- There is typically no revision round; whether a rebuttal / author-response phase runs varies by cycle (待核实 for 2026 — confirm on the call).
What a PODC reviewer actually checks
| Dimension | The reviewer's question | How to pass it |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | Does the proof close in the stated model? | Self-contained proofs; no assumption creep |
| Significance | Does this advance a problem the community cares about? | Position against the closest known bounds |
| Model honesty | Are the timing/fault/adversary assumptions declared and consistent? | An explicit model box the proofs never violate |
| Novelty | Is the result / technique new relative to PODC/DISC/journals? | A precise delta, not a topic list |
| Tightness | Is an "optimal" claim backed by a matching lower bound? | Prove or cite the lower bound, or don't claim optimal |
A reviewer who finds a proof gap or an undeclared assumption will reject on soundness, and
there is no revision to repair it — which is why podc-experiments (the assumption audit) and
podc-reproducibility (self-contained proofs) are pre-submission, not post-notification, work.
Show full SKILL.md (305 more words)Show less
How PODC differs from its siblings
- vs. DISC: DISC is the other distributed-theory flagship (EATCS, LIPIcs proceedings, fall cycle) and shares the Dijkstra Prize and Dissertation Award with PODC. The review culture is close; the differences are calendar, proceedings format, and community center of gravity, not the proofs-first bar.
- vs. SPAA: SPAA centers parallel computation; a message-passing fault-tolerance result is native at PODC and a visitor at SPAA (and vice versa for shared-memory throughput/scheduling).
- vs. STOC/FOCS/SODA: these judge sequential algorithms and complexity; a PODC paper's value must live in the distributed difficulty (faults, asynchrony, locality, concurrency) or it will be read as a mislabeled sequential result.
- vs. software-engineering / ML venues: no artifact evaluation, no rebuttal-driven Major Revision, no empirical-benchmark culture. The object of review is the proof.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] topic tags + a precise abstract -> reviewers who know your model (largest lever)
[Track choice] regular vs. Brief Announcement -> match the bar to the result's completeness
[In the submission] a self-contained proof and an honest model box -> pre-empt the soundness reject
[Rebuttal, if any] correct a factual misreading or supply a missing lemma/bound (待核实 it exists)
[After reject] no appeal; revise the proof and reroute to DISC/SPAA/a focused venue or a journalBecause there is no revision round, the leverage is almost entirely pre-submission. The single highest-value action is closing every proof and declaring every assumption before 16 February.
Reading a decision
| Outcome | What it means | Author move |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Result, proof, and model hold | Camera-ready (≤10 pages) + arXiv full version; do not weaken claims |
| Accept as Brief Announcement (if offered) | The idea is valued but not a full regular paper this cycle | Publish the ≤3-page BA; develop the full paper for a later venue |
| Reject — soundness | A proof gap or undeclared assumption | Fix the proof; do not resubmit unchanged |
| Reject — significance/novelty | Known bound, or the delta is too small | Strengthen (a matching lower bound?) or reroute |
Misreadings to avoid
- Expecting a revision round — there is none; the submission is the whole case.
- Treating a preprint as forbidden — arXiv posting is allowed; only concurrent submission elsewhere is the dual-submission problem.
- Assuming a rebuttal exists — confirm per cycle (待核实 for 2026).
- Under- or over-anonymizing — follow the lightweight double-blind wording, neither leaking identity nor stripping citations.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / under review / (rebuttal if any) / decided
[Anonymity model] lightweight double-blind — submission clean of author identity?
[Reviewer-axis map] each review point -> correctness | significance | model-honesty | novelty | tightness
[Leverage plan] the pre-submission or (rebuttal) action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak / claiming a revision round that does not exist / unsupported optimality© 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 PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Podc 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Podc 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 Podc Review Process
What does Podc Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision…. Podc Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round, the Brief Announcements track's lighter bar, and how PODC's process differs from DISC, SPAA, and the sequential-theory venues STOC/FOCS/SODA.
When should I use Podc Review Process?
Podc Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review; A program committee that reads proofs; the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round; the Brief Announcements tracks lighter bar.
How do I install Podc Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill podc-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/podc-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Podc Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill podc-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (PODC-Skills/skills/podc-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/podc-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Podc 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 podc-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/podc-review-process, .gemini/skills/podc-review-process, .github/skills/podc-review-process and .opencode/skills/podc-review-process in your project.
What does Podc Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Podc Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Podc 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 Podc 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 Podc Review Process use?
Podc 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 Podc 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 Podc Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Podc 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 Podc 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.