Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when planning a CVPR submission campaign end to end, covering the November abstract/paper/supplement deadline chain, coauthor reviewer-duty scheduling, the January rebuttal sprint, February decisions, camera-ready and June conference logistics, and the resubmission ladder across ICCV, ECCV, and the next CVPR.
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-cvpr-workflow/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -8% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 19% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 21% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 61% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -17% | 0% |
CVPR is an annual machine with one intake: in the 2026 cycle, abstracts November 6, papers November 13, supplements November 20, rebuttal late January, decisions February 20, conference June 3–7 in Denver. This skill turns that spine into a project plan with owners, because CVPR deadline weeks are lost to coordination failures more often than to science failures.
| When | Milestone | Owner discipline | |---|---|---| | T–10 weeks (early Sep) | Freeze scope: claims, benchmarks, baselines | PI + first author sign one paragraph | | T–8 weeks | Experiment matrix running; recipe ledger live | Every table row has a config | | T–6 weeks | First full draft; flip-test the figures | Co-authors annotate, don't rewrite | | T–4 weeks (early Oct) | OpenReview profiles audited for every author | One named owner; new coauthors close the list | | T–1 week (Nov 6) | Abstract registered; profiles valid | Desk-reject exposure if missed | | Nov 13 | Paper + CRF submitted | Freeze 24h early; upload before the panic hour | | Nov 20 | Supplement uploaded | Videos/code packaged per cvpr-supplementary | | Dec – Jan 12 | Coauthors deliver their assigned reviews | Late reviews endanger your paper | | Jan 22–29 | Reviews land; one-page rebuttal | Pre-book this week; nobody travels | | Jan 30 – Feb 5 | Discussion (no author access) | Resist mailing the AC | | Feb 20 | Decisions | Both branches pre-planned | | Spring (待核实) | Camera-ready + dataset release due | See cvpr-camera-ready | | Jun 3–7 | Conference (workshops 3–4, main 5–7 in 2026) | Poster/talk/travel logistics |
Deadline fortnight (early November). The supplement trailing the paper by a week tempts teams to leave packaging "for week two" — then week two evaporates into video rendering and code scrubbing. Rule: the supplement plan (what goes in, who builds it) is written before the paper deadline; week two only executes it.
Rebuttal week (late January). Seven days, one page, all reviewers at once. Assign roles when reviews drop, not after a day of group grief:
yaml# rebuttal-roles.yaml — filled within 12 hours of review release reader: # summarizes all reviews neutrally, one page, no rebuttals yet runner: # owns the 1-2 small requested experiments; hard stop at day 5 writer: # owns the single page; everyone else feeds bullets adjudicator: # PI decides which objections get space, which get one line deadline: # internal freeze 24h before OpenReview close
Submitting enrolls qualifying authors into a 25k-reviewer pool, and undelivered or irresponsible reviews can desk-reject every paper the offender authored (verified 2026 enforcement). Treat December–January reviewing as a scheduled deliverable: at submission time, list which coauthors are likely reviewers, block their calendar for review weeks, and have the group's senior authors sanity-check first-time reviewers' drafts against the official reviewer guidelines.
Most labs submit several papers into the same November wall, which multiplies the process risks nonlinearly:
endangers every paper they touch; the duty ledger must be lab-level, not paper-level.
a stale institution on one profile pollutes assignments for the whole batch.
papers each promised "small requested experiments"; pre-negotiate priority order.
everyone is defending their own draft.
At a 25.42% acceptance rate, the rational plan covers rejection before it happens. The CV calendar offers a clean ladder — CVPR (Nov) → ICCV (spring deadline, odd years) / ECCV (spring deadline, even years) → WACV/3DV or back to CVPR. Rules for climbing:
pools overlap across CVF venues and repeat objections read badly (triage method in cvpr-review-process).
2026; the next venue's window must not overlap a paper still under CVPR review.
baseline-refresh pass, not just an edit pass.
The last two weeks compress badly when run ad hoc. A schedule that has survived contact with real teams:
the supplement or the rebuttal, not the body.
baseline-freshness check against the leaderboard.
complete when logged out of the authors' accounts, lock the author list.
cvpr-writing-style), bibliography venueverification (cvpr-related-work), CRF mandatory sections drafted.
cvpr-submission; internal freeze.identity-scan code and videos; upload at T+5, not T+7, to survive a failed render.
As of 2026-07-08, CVPR 2026 has concluded and the CVPR 2027 cycle (Seattle, reported around June 20–24, 2027) had published no CFP or deadlines. Every date above is a 2026-cycle anchor for planning shape only — reopen cvpr.thecvf.com the moment your team commits, because the deadline chain (and things like the CRF) can change between editions.
text[Campaign stage] scoping / building / deadline-fortnight / in-review / rebuttal / decided [Calendar] next 3 milestones with dates and owners [Duty ledger] reviewing coauthors + calendar blocked: yes/no [Risk register] top 3 (missed-profile, supplement drift, rebuttal roles, …) [Plan B] next venue + its verified deadline [Cycle check] current-year pages reopened on: <date>
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-04 | pass→pass | 20,333 | 26,470 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,527 | 4,438 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 19,437 | 26,838 | +38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,511 | 4,503 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 19,609 | 15,814 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,597 | 3,317 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | pass→pass | 18,943 | 11,658 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,069 | 3,696 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 14,977 | 12,817 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,548 | 3,040 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 46,598 | 19,453 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,763 | 4,301 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 24,220 | 21,085 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,128 | 4,279 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 28,997 | 12,358 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,200 | 3,877 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 19,508 | 16,236 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,854 | 3,242 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 19,439 | 16,088 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,161 | 3,470 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 35,420 | 18,683 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,801 | 3,987 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 25,008 | 15,459 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,997 | 3,453 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 22,819 | 16,640 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,861 | 3,634 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 21,976 | 15,936 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,249 | 3,159 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 21,415 | 16,008 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,001 | 3,527 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 25,264 | 15,276 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,782 | 3,357 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 18,346 | 19,363 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,526 | 3,670 | +45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 21,194 | 19,155 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,464 | 3,493 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 25,293 | 13,142 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,416 | 3,118 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 24,056 | 14,303 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,736 | 3,153 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 20,700 | 12,012 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,502 | 3,551 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 17,584 | 10,943 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,822 | 3,345 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +50 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.