Awesome Journal Skills is a collection of agent skill packs tailored to hundreds of academic journals across fields including economics, social science, medicine, science, and engineering. Researchers use the packs for tasks such as choosing topics, designing empirical strategies, preparing tables and figures, submitting papers, and responding to reviewers. The catalogue entries are the project's journal-specific skills and related plugins.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-processgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-SkillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills/acl-review-process)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills/acl-review-process"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills/acl-review-process/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills/acl-review-process"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills/acl-review-process.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00062 | $0.01317 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00659 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00263 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
acl-review-process scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 13d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ACL Review Process
Use this to model where an ACL paper actually is and who decides what next. ACL decoupled reviewing from the conference: ARR produces the review package; the conference consumes it. Confirm current mechanics at aclrollingreview.org/reviewing, since cycle structure has changed repeatedly (most recently to 10-week cycles in 2025).
The pipeline, stage by stage
- ARR cycle intake: submission on OpenReview to a dated cycle (e.g., ARR January 2026); checks for format, Limitations, checklist, anonymity.
- Review: at least three reviewers score and write reviews.
- Author response + discussion: authors reply; reviewers discuss and may
update reviews (see
acl-author-response). - Meta-review: the action editor / area chair synthesizes reviews into a meta-review with a recommendation. Notably, ARR senior area chairs do not make accept/reject recommendations — that authority sits with the venue.
- Commitment: authors choose whether and where to send the finished package — ACL, or another *ACL venue accepting that cycle.
- Venue decision: the conference's senior area chairs and program chairs read reviews + meta-review and decide: main conference, Findings, or reject.
- Ethics branch: papers flagged during review go to an ethics committee, which can require revisions or recommend rejection on ACL Code of Ethics grounds independent of technical merit.
Who decides what
| Actor | Controls | Cannot do |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer | Review text, scores, discussion updates | Accept or reject anything |
| AC / action editor | Meta-review, review-issue handling | Bind the conference's decision |
| Author | Response, revision, where/whether to commit | Change reviews after the cycle closes |
| Venue SACs + PCs | Main/Findings/reject from the ARR package | Re-run the reviewing itself |
| Ethics committee | Ethics-based conditions or rejection | Judge technical contribution |
Outcomes and what they mean
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 13d ago First seen · 120 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A c392947d1494
acl-review-process is a skill published in the GitHub repository brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills (1,097 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,317 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
alterlab-teaching-design
Designs courses and teaching materials using backward design (Wiggins & McTighe), constructive alignment (Biggs), and Bloom's taxonomy alignment, generating rubrics, formative and summative assessments, syllabi, lesson plans, inclusive-pedagogy guidance, and online/hybrid course architecture. Use when the request…
alterlab-thesis-supervisor
Supervises theses and dissertations end to end — structure guidance from proposal through defense, chapter-by-chapter writing support (introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion), supervision strategies, committee management, defense and viva voce preparation, timeline planning, feedback…
alterlab-accreditation-aol
Scaffolds program-level Assurance-of-Learning (AoL) documentation for AACSB (2020 Standard 5) and ABET (Criterion 3 Student Outcomes, Criterion 4 Continuous Improvement) accreditation — program learning outcomes / competency goals, curriculum-to-outcome mapping matrices, direct- and indirect-assessment plans, rubric…
alterlab-recommendation-letters
Drafts evidence-anchored academic reference and recommendation letters across types — graduate admission, faculty hiring, tenure/promotion external review, fellowship, and award nomination — from a structured prompt of candidate accomplishments, role context, evaluator relationship, and audience, calibrating…
alterlab-syllabus-ai-policy
Drafts course-level generative-AI use policies and syllabus statements: assigns each graded task a permitted/restricted/prohibited tier (modeled on Cornell's prohibit/allow-with-attribution/encourage framework), writes the disclosure clause with a verbatim APA (OpenAI, 2023) or MLA Works Cited citation template for…
alterlab-social-science-methods
Guides advanced social science research methods — discourse analysis (Fairclough CDA, Gee), conversation analysis, quantitative content analysis, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), process tracing, archival research, participatory/community-based research (PAR, CBPR), Delphi and Q methodology, social network…