Use when planning a SenSys campaign against the two-deadline calendar — deciding which deadline to target and which edition it feeds, backward-scheduling so energy campaigns and long-term deployments finish before freeze, budgeting time for the resubmission-with-revision path, and sequencing fit, building, writing, and submission.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sensys-workflow --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Sensys Workflow?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-sensys-workflow)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: sensys-workflow
description: Use when planning a SenSys campaign against the two-deadline calendar — deciding which deadline to target and which edition it feeds, backward-scheduling so energy campaigns and long-term deployments finish before freeze, budgeting time for the resubmission-with-revision path, and sequencing fit, building, writing, and submission.
---
# SenSys Workflow
A SenSys campaign is governed by two facts the calendar imposes: SenSys runs **two submission
deadlines per cycle**, and its evidence is **physical**, so the schedule is dominated by
wall-clock time you cannot compress — a 47-day deployment takes 47 days. This skill turns the
cycle into a backward schedule that leaves room for the measurements and, if needed, the
resubmission.
## Anchor the calendar first
Before scheduling anything, pin down against the live CFP and HotCRP `/deadlines` page:
- **Which deadline** you are targeting (first or second) and **which edition it feeds**. As of
2026-07-09 the open gate is **SenSys 2027** (New York, May 10-13, 2027), with a **first-round
deadline of June 6, AoE**; the second-round deadline is **待核实**.
- The **AoE** cutoff, converted per coauthor.
- Whether an **abstract-registration** step precedes the paper upload this edition.
Treat the numbers here as a 2026-27 snapshot; the live page controls.
## Backward schedule from the deadline
Deployment and energy campaigns, not writing, are the long pole. Schedule from T-0 (paper cutoff)
backward:
| Phase | Window | What must be true by the end |
|---|---|---|
| Fit + framing | T-16 wk | `sensys-topic-selection` cleared; the system's claim is decided |
| Build + instrument | T-14 to T-8 wk | Hardware built, energy instrument set up, testbed reserved |
| Deployment / energy campaign | T-10 to T-4 wk | Long-term runs finished; traces captured (cannot compress) |
| Analysis + writing | T-6 to T-2 wk | Figures from real traces; body drafted against the worked example |
| Reproducibility freeze | T-3 wk | Provenance captured while the testbed is still live |
| Submission audit | T-1 wk to T-0 | `sensys-submission` end to end on the exact upload candidate |
The overlap is deliberate: writing starts while later deployment runs finish, because you cannot
begin the 6-week deployment at T-4.
## Budget for the two-deadline reality
The two-deadline model changes planning in a way a single-deadline venue does not:
```text
If targeting the FIRST deadline:
- A reject can resubmit at the SECOND deadline — but only WITH a substantive revision.
- Reserve testbed time AFTER the first notification for the new measurements a revision needs.
If targeting the SECOND deadline as a resubmission of a first-deadline reject:
- The revision + Response to Reviewers is REQUIRED, not optional (sensys-author-response).
- Back-schedule the new deployment/energy runs against the second cutoff BEFORE you commit.
```
A blocking reviewer objection that needs a fresh energy-harvesting deployment cannot be answered
in two weeks — decide *at notification* whether the resubmission is feasible on the calendar, not
after you have already missed the window to start the runs (`sensys-review-process`).
## Sequence the whole cycle
```text
1. Fit → sensys-topic-selection (is it SenSys after the merger?)
2. Build → hardware + instrumentation; reserve the testbed
3. Measure → sensys-experiments + sensys-reproducibility (traces captured live)
4. Write → sensys-writing-style + sensys-supplementary + sensys-related-work
5. Submit → sensys-submission (audit the exact PDF; HotCRP fields verbatim)
6. Notification → sensys-review-process (classify), then:
accept → sensys-artifact-evaluation + sensys-camera-ready
resubmit → sensys-author-response, back-scheduled to the next deadline
```
## Standing risks to track
- **Testbed contention** — shared hardware is the schedule's single point of failure; reserve early.
- **Deployment failures** — a node dying mid-run is normal; build slack for a re-run.
- **Provenance loss** — capture energy method and ground truth *before* teardown, not after.
- **Edition drift** — re-confirm which edition your deadline feeds each cycle; it can shift.
## Output format
```text
[Target] which deadline + which edition it feeds + AoE cutoff in local time
[Longpole] the deployment/energy campaign duration and its start-by date
[Schedule] backward plan T-0 → T-16wk with the freeze and audit points
[Resub] if a reject, is a next-deadline resubmission feasible on the calendar? Y/N
[Open] the scheduling risk most likely to break the plan
```
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!