| 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
[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>
