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 the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review, the rebuttal-to-notification pipeline, how the ten research tracks…
MITAuto-check passed
Install Webconf Review Process
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill webconf-review-process -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills webconf-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/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process .claude/skills/webconf-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 "webconf-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process into .claude/skills/webconf-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "webconf-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/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-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 webconf-review-process -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills webconf-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/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process .agents/skills/webconf-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 "webconf-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process into .agents/skills/webconf-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "webconf-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 webconf-review-process -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills webconf-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/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process .cursor/skills/webconf-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 "webconf-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process into .cursor/skills/webconf-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "webconf-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 The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-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 webconf-review-process -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills webconf-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/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process .gemini/skills/webconf-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 "webconf-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process into .gemini/skills/webconf-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "webconf-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 webconf-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 webconf-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/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process .github/skills/webconf-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 "webconf-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process into .github/skills/webconf-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "webconf-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 webconf-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 webconf-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/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process .opencode/skills/webconf-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 "webconf-review-process" agent skill from https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process into .opencode/skills/webconf-review-process/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "webconf-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
webconf-review-process- GitHub stars
- 1.2k
- Token cost
- ~1.7k tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 815 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 the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review, the rebuttal-to-notification pipeline, how the ten research tracks…
- Works in 4 steps: Is the problem of the Web — would it… → Is the evidence at a scale and realism… → Is the method or finding reusable beyond… → …
- Reasoning about how the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review
- SKILL.md covers Pipeline with 2026 anchors, What track scoping means for…, The venue's recurring decision… and Confidentiality and integrity, plus 3 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
What it does
Webconf Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review, the rebuttal-to-notification pipeline, how the ten research tracks shape reviewer expectations, main versus companion proceedings outcomes, and what authors can and cannot influence at each stage.
Its SKILL.md is about 1.7k 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 the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review
- The rebuttal-to-notification pipeline
- How the ten research tracks shape reviewer expectations
- Main versus companion proceedings outcomes
Example prompts
- “/webconf-review-process”
Workflow steps
4 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.
- Is the problem of the Web — would it exist without platform structure, open
- Is the evidence at a scale and realism the claim requires?
- Is the method or finding reusable beyond the studied platform or dataset?
- Are harms, ethics, and data provenance handled at the standard the "Responsible
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
Webconf Review Process loads about 1.7k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 82 tokens; SKILL.md has 815 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). 815 words, ~1,725 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/webconf-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- webconf-review-process
- description
- Use when reasoning about how the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review, the rebuttal-to-notification pipeline, how the ten research tracks shape reviewer expectations, main versus companion proceedings outcomes, and what authors can and cannot influence at each stage.
Web Conference Review Process
The Web Conference reviews papers inside topical tracks, and that single design choice explains most of what authors experience: who reviews the paper, what evidence bar applies, and why two similar papers can meet very different fates in the same year. This skill models the pipeline as verified for the 2026 edition; per-track reviewer counts, scoring scales, and meta-review mechanics were not published in verifiable sources and are marked 待核实 where they matter.
Pipeline with 2026 anchors
| Stage | 2026 date | Author-controllable? |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract registration | Sep 30, 2025 | Fully — track, title, final author list |
| Full paper | Oct 7, 2025 | Fully |
| Track review period | Oct-Nov 2025 | Not at all |
| Rebuttal window | Nov 24 - Dec 1, 2025 | The one mid-process lever |
| Track-chair / PC deliberation | Dec 2025 - Jan 2026 | Not at all |
| Notification | Jan 13, 2026 | — |
| Camera-ready | Jan 25, 2026 | Fully |
Between December 1 and January 13 there is nothing an author can legitimately do. Emailing chairs with clarifications or new results during deliberation is at best ignored and at worst remembered.
What track scoping means for your reviews
Each of the ten research tracks (from "Graph algorithms and modeling for the Web" to "Responsible Web" to "Systems and infrastructure for Web, mobile, and WoT") recruits its own expert pool via its track chairs. Consequences worth planning for:
- The bar is track-local. "Search and retrieval-augmented AI" reviewers expect ablations against current retrieval baselines; "Economics, online markets and human computation" reviewers expect incentive or welfare reasoning. The same recommendation-systems paper is a methods paper in one track and a measurement paper in another.
- Misrouting is a review-quality event, not just a fit event. A misrouted paper is reviewed by people missing the context to appreciate it, and there is no verified mechanism for authors to move a paper between tracks after the deadline.
- Interdisciplinarity cuts both ways. The venue's identity is computing plus social science plus economics; a track can staff a mixed panel, so a paper should be legible to a smart adjacent reader — define constructs, don't lean on subcommunity jargon for load-bearing claims.
The venue's recurring decision logic
Reviews at this venue orbit four recurring questions; strong submissions answer
all four in the first two pages (see webconf-writing-style):
- Is the problem of the Web — would it exist without platform structure, open hypertext, adversarial content, or live user behavior?
- Is the evidence at a scale and realism the claim requires?
- Is the method or finding reusable beyond the studied platform or dataset?
- Are harms, ethics, and data provenance handled at the standard the "Responsible Web" era expects, whatever the track?
A paper failing question 1 collects the venue's signature phrase — "better suited to a specialized venue" — regardless of technical quality.
Show full SKILL.md (362 more words)Show less
Confidentiality and integrity
Double-blind runs in both directions: authors must not attempt reviewer identification or contact, and reviewer materials are confidential permanently, not just until notification. The 2026 CFP's LLM clause also has a review-side face: policies on machine-generated reviews are set per edition and were not verifiable for 2026 — if you review, check the current reviewer instructions before using any AI assistance, and as an author do not assume LLM-written reviews are contestable on that basis alone.
Translating review language
Track panels at this venue have recognizable dialect; decode before reacting:
- "The technical contribution is limited" from an in-track expert usually means "the delta over the sibling-circuit baseline I have in mind is small" — find and name that baseline in the rebuttal rather than defending novelty abstractly.
- "The paper would benefit from evaluation on real-world data" almost always
means provenance, not size: the datasets used look synthetic, stale, or
undocumented (see
webconf-experimentson freshness as evidence). - "The societal implications deserve more discussion" is rarely a request for a philosophy section; it asks for the two concrete sentences on harms, consent, and aggregation that belong beside the data description.
- "Better suited to a specialized venue" is the web-fit failure; it is nearly unrecoverable in rebuttal unless the web-native mechanism genuinely exists in the paper and merely went unstated — in which case quote it by page and line.
- "I am not an expert in this specific area" in a low-confidence review is routing information for you: the track pool did not contain your reader, which is evidence about track choice for the resubmission.
Reading the outcome
Accept (research tracks) -> main proceedings, 12-page/8-content budget,
registration + presentation obligations attach
Reject -> full re-submission somewhere; reviews travel with
you informally (reviewer pools overlap with WSDM/
CIKM/SIGIR), so fix rather than re-roll
No verified middle states -> the 2026 sources showed no conditional-accept or
revise-and-resubmit lane for research tracks (待核实
before assuming one exists in your cycle)After a rejection, the highest-information artifact is the agreement structure
across reviews: three reviewers converging on evidence-scale doubts is a
webconf-experiments problem; divergent reviews with one champion is often a
framing problem (webconf-writing-style), and a routing error is a
webconf-topic-selection problem for the next cycle.
One structural note for expectation-setting: the notification is a single decision on a single date (January 13 in the 2026 cycle) — the sources showed no staged early-reject or two-phase review for the research tracks, unlike some ML flagships. Plan emotionally and logistically for one verdict, fifteen weeks after the abstract.
Output format
[Stage] <where the paper sits in the pipeline>
[Track lens] <what this track's pool predictably asks>
[Four questions] web-native? / evidence scale? / reusability? / responsibility?
[Actionable now] <the only levers currently open to the authors>
[待核实 items] <per-cycle mechanics to confirm on official pages>© 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 The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23
Compare with similar skills
Webconf 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Webconf Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills | 1.2k | — | ~1.7k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Arize Evaluatorgithub/awesome-copilot | 40k | 1 repos | ~8.1k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| LLM Evaluationdavila7/claude-code-templates | 32k | 12 repos | ~3.5k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Agent Evaluationsickn33/agentic-awesome-skills | 47k | 1 repos | ~2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Papers Skillsickn33/agentic-awesome-skills | 47k | 1 repos | ~2.1k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Paper 2 Webdavila7/claude-code-templates | 32k | 12 repos | ~4k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT |
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.
Papers Skill
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Skill for academic research workflows: search Semantic Scholar (200M+ papers), inspect citations, download arXiv PDFs, and extract PDF text.
Paper 2 Web
davila7/claude-code-templates
This skill should be used when converting academic papers into promotional and presentation formats including interactive websites (Paper2Web), presentation videos (Paper2Video), and conference…
Conference Paper Recommender
juliye2025/evil-read-arxiv
Searches DBLP for papers from top conferences such as CVPR, ICLR and NeurIPS, adds Semantic Scholar data, scores them and writes a yearly Obsidian note.
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 Webconf Review Process
What does Webconf Review Process do?
A skill your agent uses when reasoning about how the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review, the rebuttal-to-notification pipeline, how the ten research tracks…. Webconf Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when reasoning about how the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review, the rebuttal-to-notification pipeline, how the ten research tracks shape reviewer expectations, main versus companion proceedings outcomes, and what authors can and cannot influence at each stage.
When should I use Webconf Review Process?
Webconf Review Process fits situations like: reasoning about how the Web Conference (WWW) evaluates papers — track-scoped double-blind review; the rebuttal-to-notification pipeline; how the ten research tracks shape reviewer expectations; main versus companion proceedings outcomes.
How do I install Webconf Review Process in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill webconf-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/webconf-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Webconf Review Process in Codex?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill webconf-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (The-Web-Conference-Skills/skills/webconf-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/webconf-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Webconf 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 webconf-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/webconf-review-process, .gemini/skills/webconf-review-process, .github/skills/webconf-review-process and .opencode/skills/webconf-review-process in your project.
What does Webconf Review Process need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Webconf Review Process is instructions for the agent only.
Does Webconf 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 Webconf 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 Webconf Review Process use?
Webconf 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 Webconf Review Process use?
About 1.7k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 6.9k 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 Webconf Review Process?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Webconf Review Process: Arize Evaluator (github/awesome-copilot, 40k stars), LLM Evaluation (davila7/claude-code-templates, 32k stars), Agent Evaluation (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars) and Papers Skill (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Webconf Review Process?
brycewang-stanford (a GitHub user) maintains it in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, which has 1,228 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.