Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› neurips-review-process
neurips-review-process
GitHub用于推理NeurIPS主会审稿流程，分析审稿人与AC行为。涵盖OpenReview机制、贡献类型评估、伦理审查及互惠审稿规则。通过诊断工作流识别关键弱点，预测评审分歧与AC决策因素，并制定针对性的作者回复策略。
Trigger Scenarios
解释NeurIPS审稿流程细节
诊断论文可能被指出的弱点
分析审稿人与AC的决策逻辑
制定应对审稿意见的回复策略
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill neurips-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "neurips-review-process",
"description": "Use when explaining or diagnosing the NeurIPS main-track review process, including OpenReview, reviewer and AC roles, contribution-type review, ethics flags, reciprocal reviewing, discussion, and LLM-review policy."
}
NeurIPS Review Process
Use this skill to reason about what reviewers and ACs are likely to do with a submission. Do not use it to infer acceptance odds from folklore; use it to identify decision-relevant weaknesses.
Process model
- Reviews happen in OpenReview under double blind.
- Reviewers are asked to evaluate quality, clarity, significance, and the submission's declared contribution type.
- ACs coordinate reviewers, handle conflicts and quality issues, write or supervise meta-reviews, and make recommendations.
- Ethics concerns can be flagged and routed to ethics reviewers; severe cases can affect decisions.
- Authors who are also reviewers or ACs face reciprocal-reviewing obligations; gross negligence can create sanctions affecting their own submissions.
Reviewer mental model
Reviewers are overloaded cross-area specialists. They need to see:
- what the contribution is;
- why it is new relative to close NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR/ACL/CVPR/KDD-style work;
- whether the evidence supports the exact claim;
- whether limitations, safety, data, and reproducibility are handled responsibly;
- whether the paper can be trusted as a scientific artifact.
Diagnosis workflow
- Map each likely review concern to quality, clarity, significance, ethics, reproducibility, or fit.
- Predict which concerns the AC can use in a meta-review.
- Decide whether the problem is fixable by clarification, extra analysis, better framing, or re-routing.
- For author response, prioritize issues that change decision logic rather than issues that only improve tone.
Output format
[Likely review split] enthusiastic / borderline / skeptical
[AC-level issue] <one issue most likely to drive the meta-review>
[Ethics/reproducibility flags] <none or list>
[Response strategy] clarify / concede / add small result / reroute
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:07
