asplos-workflow
GitHub规划ASPLOS会议投稿周期，涵盖2026年9月截止、12月通知及次年4月大会。提供倒推时间表、角色分工（如两页摘要负责人）及修订策略，确保硬件依赖论文的证据构建与合规性。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill asplos-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "asplos-workflow",
"description": "Use when planning an ASPLOS campaign across the two-deadline cycle — sequencing evidence building, the September 9, 2026 submission gate, author-response windows, the December 21 notification, Major Revision resubmission six weeks later, artifact evaluation, and the April 2027 conference in Crete, with owners per risk."
}
ASPLOS Workflow
An ASPLOS campaign is a pipeline with two entry gates per edition and a revision side-channel, not a single deadline sprint. All dates below are the verified 2027 cycle (CFP and conference site, checked 2026-07-08); reopen the official pages before committing a team to any of them.
The 2027 cycle as a calendar
| Gate | April cycle | September cycle |
|---|---|---|
| Full-paper deadline (11:59 PM AoE) | April 15, 2026 — passed | September 9, 2026 — the live gate |
| Author response | July 6-9, 2026 — open this week (as of 2026-07-08) | December 1-4, 2026 |
| Notification | July 27, 2026 | December 21, 2026 |
| Major Revision due | camera-ready deadline, 6 weeks after notification | camera-ready deadline, 6 weeks after notification |
| Conference | April 11-15, 2027, Heraklion, Crete, Greece | same |
There is no separate abstract deadline in 2027, and no mid-year third round — the edition moved from three deadlines to two. Missing September means waiting for the next edition's first gate.
Working backward from September 9, 2026
A credible countdown for a systems paper with hardware-dependent evidence:
T-10 weeks (by ~Jul 1) Freeze the claim list; run asplos-topic-selection;
choose evidence instruments (silicon / FPGA / simulator).
T-8 weeks Evaluation infrastructure done: baselines building,
workloads chosen, simulator configs pinned.
T-6 weeks First full results sweep; kill or descope claims the
data will not carry. Start the two-page draft NOW —
it is the part rapid review actually reads.
T-4 weeks Full draft; internal red-team against the rapid-review
question set; ablations running.
T-2 weeks Freeze experiments. Citation-format pass (full names,
no "et al.", DOIs). Anonymity sweep.
T-1 week HotCRP entry created; PDF uploaded; co-author sign-off.
T-0 Sep 9, 11:59 PM AoE HotCRP status shows *complete*, not draft.
Role assignments that prevent known failures
- Two-page owner — one author owns pages 1-2 as a standalone artifact and
rehearses them against
asplos-writing-style; rapid review reads nothing else. - Evidence-integrity owner — keeps the experiment matrix (claims × platforms × baselines) current so the rebuttal window never requires new runs under pressure.
- Compliance owner — template, 11-page geometry, citation full-name rule, GenAI disclosure, HotCRP fields; format violations risk rejection without review.
- Response owner — reserves the response window dates (Dec 1-4 for the September cycle) on every author's calendar at submission time, not after reviews arrive.
Branch planning at notification (December 21, 2026)
- Accept → switch to
asplos-camera-readyimmediately; camera-ready lands ~6 weeks out, and artifact evaluation (asplos-artifact-evaluation) runs in parallel with its own appendix and deadlines (2027 AE calendar 待核实). - Major Revision → treat as a funded contract, not a consolation: the revision is due at the camera-ready deadline and counts as a submission; scope revision work to exactly what the decision letter requires, tracked in a change log that will become the resubmission note.
- Reject at rapid review → the diagnosis is almost always positioning: the first two pages did not establish the intersection or the evidence. Fix framing before considering a new venue.
- Reject after full review → mine the reviews for the evidence matrix, then
re-run
asplos-topic-selection; some full-review rejects are strong ISCA, SOSP, or PLDI papers mis-aimed at the intersection.
Cross-edition cautions
- The two-deadline structure is itself new for 2027; do not assume it for 2028.
- ASPLOS logistics genuinely change year to year — the 2025 edition (30th, Rotterdam) ran jointly with EuroSys; 2026 (31st) was standalone in Pittsburgh; 2027 is in Crete. Travel, visa, and registration planning must restart per edition (fees and attendance rules for 2027: 待核实).
- Program leadership rotates every edition; there is no standing editorial memory to appeal to. A policy answer from a previous year's chairs is expired.
Hardware lead times are schedule items
Systems evidence has procurement physics that a paper calendar must absorb:
- Cluster or testbed reservations for the T-8 to T-2 sweep window book out weeks ahead; reserve at claim-freeze time, not first-results time.
- FPGA synthesis iterations and simulator calibration runs are days-long serial steps — one redesign late in the countdown costs a week, not an evening.
- Access to pre-production parts (new memory devices, engineering samples) often comes with NDA review of the paper text; start that review before T-4 or it becomes the critical path.
Between notification and Crete
An accepted September-cycle paper has a compressed post-decision runway: camera-ready and any Major Revision work land ~6 weeks after December 21 — squarely across the holiday break, which the six-week plan must acknowledge — followed by artifact evaluation, then travel logistics for an April conference in Greece (visa timelines for some team members exceed the gap; start at notification). Presentation format, registration requirements, and speaker obligations for 2027 were 待核实 at pack-check time: read the acceptance email before assigning the talk.
Pipelining across gates
Teams running multiple projects should treat the two gates as a pipeline: a paper that misses the September evidence bar can target the next edition's first gate with its evaluation matrix already built, while the response and revision windows of a September submission land in December-February — plan author bandwidth so a Major Revision does not collide with the next project's deadline sprint. One person cannot own the revision of paper A and pages 1-2 of paper B in the same six weeks.
Output format
[Cycle chosen] September 2026 / next edition (reason)
[Countdown health] on-track items · at-risk items with dates
[Owners] two-page / evidence / compliance / response — names attached?
[Branch plans] accept · major-revision · rapid-reject · full-reject, one line each
[Calendar holds] Dec 1-4 response window + 6-week revision block reserved? Y/N
[Facts to re-verify] <official pages to reopen before relying on this plan>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:20
