kdd-workflow
GitHub用于规划KDD项目日历，涵盖双周期选择、摘要与论文截止日期、反驳期容量规划、Resubmit循环及ACM版权流程。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill kdd-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "kdd-workflow",
"description": "Use when planning a KDD project calendar across the venue's two submission cycles per year, including cycle choice, abstract-then-paper deadline pairs a week apart, rebuttal capacity planning, the Resubmit-to-next-cycle loop, ADS evidence lead times, and ACM e-rights\/TAPS camera-ready scheduling for SIGKDD."
}
KDD Workflow
Use this as the project-management layer. KDD's calendar is structurally different from single-deadline ML venues: two cycles per year, each with an abstract deadline about one week before the paper deadline (2026 anchors: Jul 24/Jul 31, 2025 and Feb 1/Feb 8, 2026, AoE), a rebuttal window inside review, and a Resubmit outcome that connects the cycles into a pipeline. Plan the pipeline, not a single date.
KDD is an ACM conference, not a journal: no standing editor, leadership rotates per edition (the KDD 2026 committee roster lives on the conference site; individual names 待核实 before citing), and the cost surface is registration plus, under ACM Open, a possible APC for authors at non-participating institutions — with a temporary 65% ACM subsidy announced for 2026. Verify all money facts against current pages.
Cycle-choice decision
| Situation | Choose | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence complete, paper drafted | Nearest cycle | Waiting adds staleness risk in fast subfields |
| Core result solid, ablations/scale runs missing | Next cycle | Rebuttal cannot carry links, so missing evidence has no delivery channel later |
| Prior cycle returned Resubmit | Next cycle, always declared | Addressed resubmissions carry better odds per the CFP; the forum id travels with you |
| ADS paper, launch too recent to measure | Cycle after the measurement window closes | The desk-check needs quantified post-launch numbers, not projections |
Pipeline milestones (per cycle)
- T-10 weeks — evidence lock plan: four-axis experiment plan agreed
(
kdd-experiments); ADS measurement windows already running. - T-6 weeks — mechanism freeze: no new components after this point; ablation matrix enumerable.
- T-4 weeks — draft in acmart: writing directly in the two-column format; scale runs queued (cluster time is the real deadline for large-data papers).
- T-2 weeks — artifact freeze: anonymized repository built fresh, cited in the
PDF, smoke-tested on a clean machine (
kdd-artifact-evaluation). - T-1 week — abstract deadline: title/abstract/authors/track registered; all co-author OpenReview profiles complete (five-year history, DBLP, ORCID — chasing this is a named person's job).
- T-0 — paper deadline: submission audit (
kdd-submission); ADS deployment quantification pointed to; resubmission declarations attached. - Review window — rebuttal capacity: reserve author-days in advance; per-review
responses under a link ban are writing-intensive (
kdd-author-response). - Decision — branch: Accept → e-rights + TAPS + APC status check
(
kdd-camera-ready); Resubmit → change-summary plan against the review contract; Reject → routing decision (kdd-topic-selection).
The Resubmit loop as a plan
# kdd-pipeline.yaml - one paper, tracked across cycles
paper: streamhive
track: research
cycle_history:
- cycle: 2026-C1
outcome: resubmit
contract: # concerns named in reviews = next cycle's spec
- temporal-split rebuild (R2)
- decay-mechanism ablation (R1)
- scale claim beyond 10M edges (R3)
- cycle: 2026-C2
changes_summary_page: drafted # mandatory first page of the PDF
prior_forum_id: declared
new_evidence: [table5_ablation, 2.1B_run, rebuilt_splits]
owners:
profiles_gate: <name> # co-author OpenReview completeness
artifact_freeze: <name>
rebuttal_window: <name, name>
The discipline: the review contract is written down the day reviews arrive, and every contract item maps to a change-summary line before the next cycle's abstract deadline.
Failure modes on this calendar
- Treating the abstract deadline as soft: at KDD it gates the submission and the track choice; a placeholder abstract in the wrong track is a real incident.
- Discovering an incomplete co-author profile on paper-deadline day — the one blocker that requires someone else's login to fix.
- Queuing the largest-scale run after the draft: at KDD the scale run is the contribution evidence, not a garnish, and clusters have queues.
- Winning a Resubmit and then re-litigating the reviews instead of executing the contract — the returning AC checks the named concerns first.
- Forgetting that notification and camera-ready dates for the current cycle were never verified (待核实) and promising co-authors a calendar the venue never published.
Vignette: one paper, three cycles, two tracks
A team's trajectory that the pipeline model handles cleanly: Cycle 1, the sampling
method goes to Research and draws a Resubmit with three named concerns. Between
cycles, the method also ships inside the company's ranking system. Cycle 2 now offers
a fork: return the Research paper with the contract executed, or wait one more cycle
and submit the deployed system to ADS with a real measurement window. The pipeline
answer: do both, sequenced — Research resubmission in Cycle 2 (the contract items
are done and Resubmit standing decays with staleness), ADS submission the following
cycle once the post-launch window closes. Two papers, two tracks, no dual-submission
conflict, each riding the evidence it actually has (kdd-topic-selection governs the
fork; kdd-related-work governs the overlap declarations between them).
Capacity planning numbers
Planning heuristics — replace with your team's observed values after one cycle:
- Rebuttal window: one author-day per review for text-only responses; double it if any new run is permitted and needed.
- Anonymized artifact build from a mature internal repo: 2-3 days including the clean-machine smoke test, dominated by de-identification review.
- ADS measurement window: whatever the CFP demands is a floor; credible pre/post or A/B windows are typically weeks, which is why the ADS decision happens a quarter early, not a deadline-month early.
- Profile-gate sweep across N co-authors: an hour of work, a week of waiting on other people — start it at abstract-minus-two-weeks.
Output format
[Pipeline stage] planning / evidence / drafting / submitted-C<k> / rebuttal / decision-branch
[Cycle target] <cycle + abstract/paper dates from current CFP, AoE>
[Critical path] <three tasks that decide readiness>
[Resubmit contract] <items + owners, or N-A>
[Money checks] ACM Open status / APC exposure / registration (待核实 items flagged)
[Owner map] profiles: <who> / artifact: <who> / rebuttal: <who>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 16:56
