thedixitjain ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE)
Conference positioning
ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE) is a top computer-science conference venue for software engineering foundations, tools, empirical studies, program analysis, testing, and AI for SE. It rewards an SE paper with strong method/tool novelty and evidence beyond anecdotal examples. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
- The author names FSE / ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering as the target venue.
- A manuscript in software engineering foundations needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: software engineering foundations, tools, empirical studies, program analysis, testing, and AI for SE.
- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
- The paper should explain why the result matters to FSE's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
- Reviewer lens: Read reviewers as SE researchers. Empirical validity, artifacts, developer relevance, and real-project evidence matter.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: software engineering foundations, tools, empirical studies, program analysis, testing, and AI for SE.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: software, engineering, foundations, tools, empirical, studies, program, analysis, testing, venue-specific, contribution, flagship, conf, researchr.
- Official anchor domain: conf.researchr.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in software engineering flagship and the author can say why FSE reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
international-conference-on- software-engineering(ICSE),ieee-acm-international-conference-on-automated-software- engineering(ASE),acm-sigsoft-international-symposium-on-software-testing-and-analysis(ISSTA). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from conf.researchr.org.
Method & evidence bar
- Use real programs, benchmarks, proofs, developer studies, or artifacts matched to the contribution type.
- For tools, report usability, scalability, false positives/negatives, and reproducible artifact details.
- For theory, provide precise definitions and complete proofs; for empirical SE, foreground validity threats.
- For FSE, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: an SE paper with strong method/tool novelty and evidence beyond anecdotal examples.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- State the software-engineering or language problem in terms of developer, program, proof, or runtime consequence.
- Keep examples small but nontrivial, then scale evidence to realistic code or formal benchmarks.
- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://conf.researchr.org/series/fse
- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
- Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at FSE, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
- The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
- Related work includes the nearest current-cycle software engineering flagship papers and explains the technical delta.
- The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
- The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Toy examples with no evidence on real programs or benchmarks.
- Tool paper without artifact clarity or comparison to current systems.
- Empirical claims without validity analysis or reproducible data pipeline.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving FSE reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses FSE's bar, compare against international-conference-on-software-engineering / ieee-acm-international-conference-on-automated-software-engineering / acm-sigplan-conference-on-programming-language-design-and-implementation / acm-sigplan-symposium-on-principles-of-programming-languages. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Computer-Science-Conference-Skills/skills/acm-international-conference-on-the-foundations-of-software-engineering/SKILL.md