Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› acl-workflow
acl-workflow
GitHub指导ACL论文投稿全流程的项目管理技能。涵盖ARR周期选择、反向时间规划、承诺决策、拒稿后重投循环及最终录用后的Camera-Ready准备，帮助团队把握~10周审稿节奏与关键节点。
Trigger Scenarios
规划ACL或相关会议（如EMNLP/EACL）的投稿时间表
决定ARR提交周期并制定反向倒推计划
处理论文被拒后的修改与重新提交策略
查询特定年份（如2026）的具体截止日期和里程碑
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "acl-workflow",
"description": "Use when planning an ACL project calendar across ACL Rolling Review cycles, covering cycle selection against conference commitment windows, backward planning from an ARR deadline, the review-response-meta-review timeline, commitment decisions, resubmission loops to later cycles, and camera-ready through ACL Anthology publication."
}
ACL Workflow
Use this as the project-management layer for an ACL paper. Unlike one-deadline conferences, ACL runs on a cycle-and-commit rhythm: pick an ARR cycle, ride its ~10-week review train, then decide at the commitment window whether to send the package to the conference or loop back for another cycle.
ACL is a conference with rotating per-edition program committees, not a journal: there is no standing editor and no APC. Costs are registration-based, and Anthology publication is free and open access.
The 2026 rhythm as a worked anchor
ACL 2026 (64th edition, San Diego, July 2-7, 2026) drew from the ARR October 2025 and January 2026 cycles:
| Milestone | Date (verified for ACL 2026) |
|---|---|
| ARR January cycle submission | January 5, 2026 |
| Reviews + meta-reviews to authors | by March 9-10, 2026 |
| Commitment to ACL 2026 | March 14, 2026 |
| Acceptance notification | April 4, 2026 |
| Camera-ready | April 19, 2026 |
| Conference | July 2-7, 2026 |
Later 2026 cycles (March 16, May 25, August 3, October 12 submissions) feed EMNLP/AACL 2026 and EACL 2027 instead. Every future date is cycle-volatile — re-read aclrollingreview.org/dates before committing a team to any of them.
Choosing a cycle
- Work backward from the conference you want: each *ACL conference announces which cycles it accepts commitments from. The earlier eligible cycle buys a free resubmission shot at the same conference if reviews go badly.
- A cycle deadline you hit with a rushed paper is worse than the next cycle hit with a finished one — reviews persist and follow resubmissions.
- Mind the response window inside the cycle (a few days, roughly five weeks after submission): the team must be available then, not just at submission.
Backward plan from a cycle deadline
| Weeks out | Milestone for an experiments-heavy NLP paper |
|---|---|
| 8 | Claim fixed; datasets, baselines, and evaluation protocol frozen |
| 6 | Main results in; error-analysis sampling started |
| 4 | Human evaluation fielded; ablations running |
| 3 | Full draft in ACL style; internal red-team read |
| 2 | Responsible NLP checklist drafted against the real paper |
| 1 | Limitations written; anonymity sweep; supplement archive built |
| 0 | Submit early on deadline day (AoE) |
The resubmission loop
cycle N reviews weak?
-> revise (new experiments, rescoped claims)
-> cycle N+1 submission WITH: link to prior submission,
change summary, point-by-point response to old weaknesses
-> commit the stronger package to the next eligible conference
Budget one loop into any plan that matters: the modal strong ACL paper today has seen two cycles. Skipping the revision note is a desk reject; a floor meta-review score forbids quick resubmission without wholesale revision.
Post-decision branches
- Main conference: camera-ready sprint (see
acl-camera-ready), registration, presentation prep, artifact release. - Findings: same camera-ready track; decide early on the presentation option the edition offers and whether to present at an affiliated workshop.
- Reject: hold a post-mortem against the meta-review within a week while context is fresh; choose next cycle + venue deliberately, not reflexively.
Coordination rules that save cycles
- One owner for the checklist, one for anonymity, one for the supplement — the three most common last-day failures are all ownerless tasks.
- Freeze a "submitted" tag in the repo: the author response may only cite what that tag contains.
- Calendar the response window and the commitment deadline the day you submit; both are short and both are missable.
Running multiple papers through the machine
- Stagger sibling papers across cycles rather than stacking one deadline: the response windows will otherwise collide, and response quality is the highest-leverage hour-for-hour work in the pipeline.
- Track each paper as (cycle, state, target venue, fallback venue) — the fallback is a real decision because commitment windows do not wait.
- Reuse infrastructure deliberately: one anonymization script, one checklist template pre-filled with lab defaults, one supplement layout.
- Reviewer-duty obligations may attach to submissions in current cycles; budget senior-author reviewing time into the same calendar (verify the current cycle's policy — this has changed over the years).
Signals to re-plan immediately
- The dates page announces a cycle-structure change (it has happened multiple times; 10-week cycles arrived only in May 2025).
- Your target conference posts its eligible-cycle list and your intended cycle is not on it.
- Reviews arrive with a fixable core objection and the next cycle's deadline is within two weeks — a rushed loop beats a stale package only if the fix is genuinely small.
- A competing preprint lands mid-cycle: plan the response-window framing and the camera-ready citation now, not at notification.
Output format
[Stage] planning / cycle-N under review / response window / commit window / accepted / revising
[Target] <conference + eligible ARR cycles, with dates and source>
[Critical path] <three tasks gating the next deadline>
[Loop budget] <cycles remaining before target conference>
[Owner map] <checklist/anonymity/supplement/response owners>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:16
