Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› acm-sigcomm
acm-sigcomm
GitHub用于评估论文是否适合ACM SIGCOMM投稿，提供定位、框架调整、证据检查及拒稿风险分析。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定SIGCOMM为目标会议
计算机网络领域稿件需进行会议适配性审查
需将期刊或arXiv风格重构为会议叙事
需要针对匿名性、 Artifact、反驳策略的诊断
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acm-sigcomm -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "acm-sigcomm",
"description": "Use when targeting ACM SIGCOMM (SIGCOMM) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for networking flagship."
}
ACM SIGCOMM (SIGCOMM)
Conference positioning
ACM SIGCOMM (SIGCOMM) is a top computer-science conference venue for computer networks, Internet measurement, protocols, data centers, congestion control, and networked systems. It rewards a networking paper with sharp problem framing and measurement or implementation at credible scale. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
- The author names SIGCOMM / ACM SIGCOMM as the target venue.
- A manuscript in computer networks needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: computer networks, Internet measurement, protocols, data centers, congestion control, and networked systems.
- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
- The paper should explain why the result matters to SIGCOMM's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
- Reviewer lens: Treat SIGCOMM as the ACM networking flagship: Internet measurement, protocol design, congestion control, routing, data-center networking, and deployed network systems must be technically central. A generic distributed-systems artifact needs a network insight to fit.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: computer networks, Internet measurement, protocols, data centers, congestion control, and networked systems.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: networks, internet, measurement, protocols, data, centers, congestion, control, networked, venue-specific, contribution, networking, flagship, conferences, sigcomm.
- Official anchor domain: conferences.sigcomm.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in networking flagship and the author can say why SIGCOMM reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
usenix-symposium-on-operating- systems-design-and-implementation(OSDI),usenix-symposium-on-networked-systems-design- and-implementation(NSDI),acm-mobicom(MobiCom),acm-mobisys(MobiSys). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from conferences.sigcomm.org.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What SIGCOMM is. The ACM SIGCOMM flagship for networking — Internet architecture, protocols, measurement, and network systems at the field's top bar.
- vs INFOCOM. INFOCOM (IEEE) is larger and more performance/theory/modeling-tolerant; SIGCOMM rewards a built, measured networking contribution.
- vs CoNEXT. CoNEXT (also ACM SIGCOMM) is the home for emerging/experimental networking; route early or niche work there, field-defining work here.
SIGCOMM-specific routing detail
- Prefer SIGCOMM when the contribution is a flagship networking result: Internet architecture, protocols, measurement, congestion/control, routing, programmable networks, or networked infrastructure.
- Route shorter or more focused experimental networking work to CoNEXT, networked systems artifacts to NSDI, and IEEE communications/networking work to INFOCOM when that community owns the claim.
- SIGCOMM evidence should make network-scale realism, protocol behavior, measurement validity, deployment constraints, and comparison to mature network baselines explicit.
Method & evidence bar
- Build the artifact or prototype far enough that the core design can be measured under realistic workloads.
- Use appropriate baselines, sensitivity analyses, and workload characterization; systems reviewers look for hidden bottlenecks.
- Separate engineering effort from research contribution: name the abstraction, mechanism, or tradeoff.
- For SIGCOMM, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a networking paper with sharp problem framing and measurement or implementation at credible scale.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Start from a systems pain point and show why existing abstractions fail.
- Use evaluation sections that answer research questions, not a tour of every benchmark run.
- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
- Confirm the review workflow and portal: the current USENIX/ACM/IEEE author kit, artifact policy, and submission system.
- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at SIGCOMM, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
- The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
- Related work includes the nearest current-cycle networking flagship papers and explains the technical delta.
- The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
- The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Toy implementation or microbenchmark-only evidence for a systems claim.
- No comparison to mature systems or no explanation of deployment constraints.
- Performance gains with unclear workload representativeness.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving SIGCOMM reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses SIGCOMM's bar, compare against acm-symposium-on-operating-systems-principles / usenix-symposium-on-operating-systems-design-and-implementation / usenix-symposium-on-networked-systems-design-and-implementation / architectural-support-for-programming-languages-and-operating-systems. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM SIGCOMM (SIGCOMM)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:40
