Pldi review process
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/PLDI-Skills/skills/pldi-review-process
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pldi-review-processAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when interpreting PLDI's review pipeline — double-blind HotCRP reviewing by a PL-implementor PC, the February author-response window, March notification, up-to-10% Distinguished Paper selection, and how post-acceptance artifact evaluation and PACMPL publication follow the decision.
SKILL.md
3.8 KB, 826 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
PLDI Review Process
Model the pipeline from the 2026 cycle (pldi26.sigplan.org, read 2026-07-08), then re-anchor every date to the current edition: papers due November 13, 2025; reviews written over the winter; author response February 17-21, 2026; decisions March 5, 2026; artifact evaluation after acceptance; publication as PACMPL Issue PLDI; talks in Boulder June 17-19, 2026. Chairs rotate per edition — 2026 ran under Program Chair Manu Sridharan — so process details are one-cycle facts.
Who is reading you
The PC is dominated by people who have shipped compilers, runtimes, analyzers, and verifiers. Practical consequences:
- Claims are audited mechanically. A reviewer may re-derive your complexity bound, check your semantics against a corner case, or mentally rerun your benchmark protocol. Vague spots read as hidden flaws.
- "Would this survive contact with real programs?" is the ambient question. Toy-language-only evaluations need an explicit argument for why the toy captures the hard part.
- Double-blind is real but statistical: some reviewers will guess your lab; the process still requires the paper not to confirm it.
Stage-by-stage
| Stage (2026 anchors) | What happens | Your lever |
|---|---|---|
| Nov deadline | Triage: format, page cap, anonymity, scope | Zero summary-rejection triggers (pldi-submission) |
| Winter reviewing | 3+ reviews scored on novelty, soundness, evaluation, clarity | Already spent; the paper argues alone |
| Feb 17-21 response | Authors answer factual errors and direct questions | The one paragraph that saves a soundness doubt (pldi-author-response) |
| PC discussion | Reviews + response reconciled; champions matter | A response that arms your champion with quotable pointers |
| Mar 5 notification | Accept / reject (any shepherding terms come with the letter) | Deliver conditions precisely and fast |
| Post-acceptance | Artifact evaluation, badges, PACMPL production | pldi-artifact-evaluation, pldi-camera-ready |
Whether a given cycle uses conditional acceptance or formal shepherding was not confirmed for 2026 (待核实) — read your notification letter as the authority.
Distinguished papers
Up to 10% of accepted papers may be designated Distinguished Papers; PLDI 2025 named 6 of 89 (about 6.7%). You cannot apply for it, but the profile is consistent: a crisp problem, a mechanism others can reuse, an evaluation beyond reproach, and usually a strong artifact. Aim the paper at that profile and let the committee do what it does.
Reading a decision
- Reject with soundness objections: fix before anything else; the same PC community reviews for POPL and OOPSLA, and a known-broken theorem follows you.
- Reject on evaluation: usually the cheapest repair — the SIGPLAN Empirical
Evaluation checklist (
pldi-reproducibility) is the reviewers' own rubric. - Reject on fit ("this is a POPL paper", "this is engineering"): a routing
signal, not a quality verdict; rerun
pldi-topic-selectionhonestly. - Accept: your response commitments are now contractual; see
pldi-camera-ready.
Output format
[Stage] pre-submission / in review / response window / decided
[Review posture] champion? soundness doubts? evaluation objections?
[Response leverage] <which objections are answerable from the submitted PDF>
[Decision reading] accept path / repair-and-resubmit / re-route venue
[Next dates] <from the live cycle pages, with 待核实 flags>