Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/atc-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) submission is evaluated — the two-round extended-abstract model, the round-one gate by two reviewers, the round-two read by 3-4 reviewers, double-blind reviewing, rebuttal, conditional acceptance with shepherding, and how ATC differs from OSDI/SOSP/NSDI.
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 22 without it.
and 8 more in the full report
9 fixed12 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We are drafting our round-one extended abstract. How long can it be, and is this extended abstract published in the ACM Digital Library proceedings? Format the answer using the standard key-value schema.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Identifies the extended abstract length limit as two pages | Missed | Passed |
| Confirms the extended abstract is review-only and not published | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ATC's process is unusual among systems venues in 2026 because it runs in two rounds gated by a two-page extended abstract, and because acceptance is conditional on a shepherd. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a single-round conference is that round one can end your submission before anyone reads the full paper — the extended abstract is not a formality.
atc26.hotcrp.com) with double-blind anonymity:
identities are mutually hidden through reviewing.| Outcome | What it means | Author move |
|---|---|---|
| Early reject (round one) | The abstract did not convey a problem, contribution, and result that clear the bar | Reframe the abstract; the paper may be fine but the pitch failed — see atc-writing-style |
| Full review, then reject | A design or evidence gap survived the full read | Fix the substance, not the framing; consider a sibling venue |
| Conditional accept | Contribution holds; specific revisions required | Treat the shepherd's list as binding; make or explicitly justify each item |
| Reject with encouragement | Structural but repairable over a cycle | Rebuild the evidence and resubmit next cycle or reroute |
The strategic reading: because round one judges the abstract, the highest-leverage editing on the whole paper is often the two pages a round-one reviewer sees. Write the submission so its problem and result are legible before the details.
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.