Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› acm-workshop-on-hot-topics-in-networks
acm-workshop-on-hot-topics-in-networks
GitHub用于评估论文是否适合ACM HotNets会议，提供投稿策略、内容重构及拒稿风险诊断。适用于目标定位、早期网络想法的契合度检查、从期刊向会议叙事的重构，以及匿名性、证据缺口和反驳姿态的诊断。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定HotNets为目标会场
需对早期网络想法进行会议契合度评估
需将期刊或arXiv风格重构为会议叙事
需要针对该会场的证据、匿名性或反驳策略诊断
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acm-workshop-on-hot-topics-in-networks -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "acm-workshop-on-hot-topics-in-networks",
"description": "Use when targeting ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets) 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 workshop."
}
ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets)
Conference positioning
ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets) is a top computer-science conference venue for early-stage networking ideas, provocative systems/network directions, and concise position papers. It rewards a networking idea paper with a crisp thesis and credible early evidence rather than full-system maturity. 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 HotNets / ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks as the target venue.
- A manuscript in early-stage networking ideas 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: early-stage networking ideas, provocative systems/network directions, and concise position papers.
- 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 HotNets'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 HotNets as a networking workshop venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: early-stage networking ideas, provocative systems/network directions, and concise position papers.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: early-stage, networking, ideas, provocative, network, directions, concise, position, papers, venue-specific, contribution, workshop, 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 workshop and the author can say why HotNets reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
acm-international-symposium-on- high-performance-parallel-and-distributed-computing(HPDC),acm-sigmetrics(SIGMETRICS),acm-conference-on-security-and-privacy-in-wireless-and-mobile-networks(WiSec). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from conferences.sigcomm.org.
HotNets-specific routing detail
- Prefer HotNets when the paper is a compact, provocative networking thesis with enough early evidence to make the direction credible, but not yet a full SIGCOMM/NSDI system.
- Move to SIGMETRICS when the contribution is measurement or modeling methodology; move to HPDC when the hard part is distributed/HPC runtime or scheduling at scale.
- A HotNets submission can be deliberately early, but the introduction must make the bet, implications, and missing full-system evidence 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 HotNets, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a networking idea paper with a crisp thesis and credible early evidence rather than full-system maturity.
- 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/hotnets/
- 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 HotNets, 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 workshop 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 HotNets reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses HotNets'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 / acm-sigcomm. 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 Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets)
[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 12:41
