Individual skill
neurips-review-process
Use when explaining or diagnosing the NeurIPS main-track review process, including OpenReview, reviewer and AC roles, contribution-type review, ethics flags, reciprocal reviewing, discussion, and LLM-review policy.
NeurIPS-Skills/skills/neurips-review-process/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- No
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Not checked yet
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,410
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- engineering Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 2,122 bytes
Read excerpt
# NeurIPS Review Process
Use this skill to reason about what reviewers and ACs are likely to do with a submission. Do not use
it to infer acceptance odds from folklore; use it to identify decision-relevant weaknesses.
## Process model
- Reviews happen in OpenReview under double blind.
- Reviewers are asked to evaluate quality, clarity, significance, and the submission's declared
contribution type.
- ACs coordinate reviewers, handle conflicts and quality issues, write or supervise meta-reviews,
and make recommendations.
- Ethics concerns can be flagged and routed to ethics reviewers; severe cases can affect decisions.
- Authors who are also reviewers or ACs face reciprocal-reviewing obligations; gross negligence can