Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/asplos-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set, how revisions are re-reviewed as submissions, and where authors actually hold leverage in each stage.
Passed 18 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 22 without it.
and 9 more in the full report
7 fixed11 passed either way3 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Our team is assessing our ASPLOS paper after completing our initial draft. Please perform a process check on our work. Format your response strictly using the established output blocks: state the current stage, assess rapid-review survival probability (noting cross-topic visibility in the first two pages and the weakest component), list line-by-line red-team audit findings for R1 through R6, evaluate Major Revision readiness (checklist status and 6-week execution feasibility), highlight what leverage we retain at this point in the pipeline, and list any cycle URLs to re-verify.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Formats output starting each block with [Stage now], [Rapid-survival estimate], [Red-team findings], [If Major Revision], [Leverage remaining], and [Cycle facts to re-verify]. | Missed | Passed |
| Evaluates red-team criterion R2 specifically as whether the baseline represents the strongest deployed alternative. | Missed | Passed |
| Evaluates red-team criterion R4 specifically as tracing wins to the mechanism via ablation. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
ASPLOS 2027 runs a staged pipeline that differs from every sibling venue in two places: an explicit rapid-review screen on the first two pages, and a Major Revision outcome with journal-like mechanics. Everything below is the 2027 cycle as verified 2026-07-08; stage design is re-decided per edition.
| Stage | Who reads what | Author leverage |
|---|---|---|
| Rapid review | Committee members read pages 1-2 only, double-blind | Total — you wrote those pages |
| Full review | Full paper, double-blind, multiple reviewers | High before submission, zero during |
| Author response | Reviews + your rebuttal (reading expectation ≈ 800 words) | Moderate — corrections and answers land |
| Decision | Accept / Major Revision / Reject | None |
| Revision re-review | Revised paper + change note, judged as a submission | High — the requirements are written down |
The 2027 CFP models the screen on early triage at high-impact journals: most submissions may not advance past it, and the point is to concentrate expert reviewer effort on papers where the committee can review with high confidence. Two consequences for authors:
A useful red-team script — have a non-author run it against the submitted PDF:
R1 Is the claimed coupling real? Try to mentally re-implement each half
without the other; if either succeeds, expect a "why not <single venue>?"
R2 Is the baseline the strongest deployed alternative, tuned, on the same
platform? Find one stronger baseline the paper skipped.
test cases passed, vs 12 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.