Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› mobisys-review-process
mobisys-review-process
GitHub解析 MobiSys 双轮审稿机制，涵盖 HotCRP 双盲流程、早期拒稿、受限反驳窗口及决策标准。指导针对系统/服务领域评审的应对策略，强调真实设备证据与能量严谨性，规避单设备或模糊声明导致的拒稿风险。
Trigger Scenarios
MobiSys 论文审稿策略规划
解释 MobiSys 双轮评审流程
制定 rebuttal 回复策略
评估 on-device 实验设计的合规性
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill mobisys-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "mobisys-review-process",
"description": "Use when explaining or planning around MobiSys peer review — the two-round process with an early-reject cut after round 1, the round-2 rebuttal window, double-blind HotCRP mechanics, the systems-and-services reviewer pool, and decision criteria for on-device claims, so response strategy fits how MobiSys decides."
}
MobiSys Review Process
Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP, the HotCRP site, and the organizing-committee page before making process claims — the mechanics are cycle-specific.
Process model
- MobiSys uses HotCRP for submission and review, with a paper-registration step preceding the paper upload and double-blind review (author identities hidden since 2017).
- Review runs in two rounds. Papers that do not advance past round 1 receive an early rejection with reviews, so authors can re-plan before the process ends. Round-2 survivors reach reviews and a rebuttal window.
- The rebuttal is scope-limited: correct factual errors and answer specific reviewer
questions; new results are admissible only when directly responsive, or may be promised for
camera-ready (
mobisys-author-response). - Unlike MobiCom and NSDI, the rendered 2026 CFP describes accept/reject through the rebuttal, not a separate one-shot revision channel; treat any revision path as 待核实 per cycle.
- Accepted papers are published in the ACM Digital Library, so camera-ready compliance and artifact badges matter as much as the initial accept.
Who reviews here
- The pool is systems-and-services researchers: people who build and measure mobile runtimes, on-device ML, sensing services, and platforms, and who read an energy or latency claim as something to be re-derived, not admired.
- Because MobiSys is specialized, topical matches are close; a hand-wavy device claim or an undefined energy boundary gets caught rather than skimmed past.
- Borderline mobile-systems papers usually fall on one of three edges: an evaluation on a single device or single run, an energy/thermal claim without a described instrument, or a contribution that is really a better model dressed as a system.
Scoring leverage table
| Review dimension | What raises it | What sinks it |
|---|---|---|
| Contribution | A system mechanism forced by the device constraint | A model or algorithm with an incidental phone demo |
| On-device evidence | Distributions on real hardware across devices/states | Single-device, single-run, simulation-only numbers |
| Energy/latency rigor | Named instrument, boundary, and sustained-load behavior | "Efficient" with no measured joules or throttle trace |
| Clarity | An explicit operating point (device, workload, budget) | Latency numbers with no device or workload context |
Stage-by-stage realism
- Round 1: triage by what a systems reviewer would weigh — is the device evidence real and is the contribution a system? A thin evaluation is the classic early reject.
- Rebuttal: windows are short and scope is narrow; a precise reply that fixes a factual error and answers the one decision-critical question beats an exhaustive one.
- Decision: one unresolved evidence objection (single-device, undefined energy boundary) outweighs several resolved clarity complaints.
- After accept: artifact evaluation and camera-ready are their own gates
(
mobisys-artifact-evaluation,mobisys-camera-ready).
Output format
[Current stage] submitted / round-1 / round-2 reviews / rebuttal / decision / camera-ready
[Decision actors] <reviewers / AC / chairs>
[Likely leverage] <contribution / on-device evidence / energy-latency rigor / clarity>
[Forbidden moves] <identity leak / out-of-scope new results in rebuttal>
[Next response move] <one action>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:04
