Use when planning an ISSTA project timeline from venue fit through the January research-paper deadline, the March author response, the April first decision, the May Major-Revision sprint, the June final decision, artifact evaluation, and the October symposium, with backward-planning offsets for a testing/analysis tool paper and its artifact.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill issta-workflow --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Issta Workflow?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-issta-workflow)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: issta-workflow
description: Use when planning an ISSTA project timeline from venue fit through the January research-paper deadline, the March author response, the April first decision, the May Major-Revision sprint, the June final decision, artifact evaluation, and the October symposium, with backward-planning offsets for a testing/analysis tool paper and its artifact.
---
# ISSTA Workflow
Use this as the project-management skill for an ISSTA submission. Replace every date below with the
current official timetable and work backward from the HotCRP deadline — ISSTA's calendar, and even
its number of deadlines, changes between editions.
ISSTA is a conference, not a journal: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing
charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition General Chair and Program Chairs, appointed by
ACM SIGSOFT and turning over each year, and the cost model is registration, not APCs — proceedings
appear in the ACM Digital Library. Re-check the current organization page rather than carrying a
name forward.
## Milestones (2026 shape — verify the current cycle)
- **Venue fit:** confirm the contribution is genuinely testing-and-analysis, not a broader SE result.
- **Evidence lock:** freeze the technique's scope, the subjects and benchmark versions, the
baselines, and the artifact plan.
- **Submission deadline (Jan 29, 2026):** HotCRP record complete, 18-page anonymous `sigconf` PDF
uploaded, subjects pinned.
- **Author response (Mar 24-26, 2026):** rebuttal anchored in submitted evidence.
- **First decision (Apr 16, 2026):** Accept, Major Revision, or Reject.
- **Major-Revision deadline (May 21, 2026):** revised paper plus a ledger walking every reviewer
comment.
- **Final decision (Jun 25, 2026):** terminal outcome for revised papers.
- **Artifact evaluation:** package for the ACM badges and the Zenodo deposit (separate track/dates).
- **Camera-ready and symposium (Oakland, Oct 3-9, 2026):** ACM DL package, registration, in-person
presentation.
## Backward plan from the paper deadline
| Weeks out (heuristic) | Testing/analysis milestone |
|---|---|
| 10+ | Technique implemented; scope and threat model fixed |
| 8 | Subjects and benchmark versions pinned; baselines configured at equal budget |
| 6 | Full evaluation runs complete with repeated runs and seeds logged |
| 4 | Statistics done (non-parametric test + effect size); tables generated from logs |
| 3 | Draft in ACM `sigconf`; threats-to-validity section written, not stubbed |
| 2 | Internal mock review by a testing-literate reader; artifact smoke-tested |
| 1 | Anonymity sweep; HotCRP record; artifact staging anonymized |
| 0 | 18-page PDF on HotCRP; confirm the abstract matches |
These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor each to the current official timetable, never to
a previous cycle's calendar or deadline count.
## Failure modes by stage
- Treating Major Revision as a soft reject: teams that coast after April lose the June decision they
could have won by walking the reviewers' ledger.
- Deferring the artifact to after acceptance: the badge and Zenodo work is real engineering, and a
tool that only ran on the authors' cluster earns nothing.
- Leaving `sigconf` reflow to the final week: two-column code listings and full-width tables overflow
late.
- Picking private subjects over an established benchmark: an evaluation that cannot be compared to
prior work invites an external-validity reject that no rebuttal fixes.
## Coordination notes
- Assign one owner for the artifact and Zenodo deposit and another for the anonymity sweep; shared
ownership is how both slip.
- Archive the exact submitted PDF and artifact, because response and Major-Revision replies must
quote them precisely.
## Output format
```text
[Current stage] idea / evaluation / writing / submission / response / major-revision / accepted
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <page/anonymity/evaluation/baseline/artifact/presentation>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!