--- name: acm-sigsoft-international-symposium-on-software-testing-and-analysis description: Use when targeting ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for software testing. --- # ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) ## Conference positioning ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) is a top computer-science conference venue for software testing, analysis, fuzzing, verification, debugging, and program repair. It rewards a testing/analysis paper with clear fault model and strong benchmark or real-project evidence. 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 ISSTA / ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis as the target venue. - A manuscript in software testing 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 testing, analysis, fuzzing, verification, debugging, and program repair. - 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 ISSTA'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: Treat ISSTA as a software testing venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard. - Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar. - Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: software testing, analysis, fuzzing, verification, debugging, and program repair. - Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: software, testing, analysis, fuzzing, verification, debugging, program, repair, venue-specific, contribution, conf, researchr. - Official anchor domain: conf.researchr.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit. ## 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 ISSTA, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a testing/analysis paper with clear fault model and strong benchmark or real-project evidence. - 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/issta - 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 ISSTA, 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 testing 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 ISSTA reviewers too little technical or empirical substance. ## Re-routing decision If the paper misses ISSTA's bar, compare against `international-conference-on-software-engineering` / `acm-international-conference-on-the-foundations-of-software-engineering` / `ieee-acm-international-conference-on-automated-software-engineering` / `acm-sigplan-conference-on-programming-language-design-and-implementation`. 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 ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) [Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other [Main evidence gap] [Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready [Top rejection risk] [Re-route suggestion] ```