[REVIEW]: ReProspect - A Framework for Reproducible prospecting of CUDA applications

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @romintomasetti (Romin Tomasetti)
Repository: https://github.com/uliegecsm/reprospect
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @nkrusch
Reviewers: @dinesh-rt, @cedricchevalier19
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/31d0b8cb561f2ae10c399e2373543e7f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/31d0b8cb561f2ae10c399e2373543e7f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/31d0b8cb561f2ae10c399e2373543e7f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/31d0b8cb561f2ae10c399e2373543e7f)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@dinesh-rt & @cedricchevalier19, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @nkrusch know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able; the expectation is that it will take 2-4 weeks to complete. ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @cedricchevalier19

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3295500.3356219 is OK
- 10.1109/SC.2016.46 is OK
- 10.1145/3588195.3592989 is OK
- 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3097283 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2339027 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-31476-6_7 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08126 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-11261-4_11 is OK
- 10.1145/3445814.3446734 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102837 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Design Patterns and Performance Analysis of Polymo...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: CUDA Binary Utilities
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVIDIA CUDA Profiling Tools Interface (CUPTI) - CU...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVIDIA Nsight Compute
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVIDIA Nsight Systems
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVTX: NVIDIA Tools Extension Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Parallel Thread Execution ISA Version 9.1
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Efficiently implementing FE boundary conditions us...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Repository Analysis Report

Code breakdown

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.20 s (1238.3 files/s, 146555.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         121           3767           4674          11896
SVG                              3              9             32           3544
C++                             18            304            173           1137
YAML                             5             97              7            631
TeX                              2             38              0            313
CMake                           26             79             20            294
Sass                             5              7            216            244
TOML                             2             24              6            230
Markdown                         3             68              0            216
reStructuredText                42            143            164            209
JSON                             2              0              0            167
Dockerfile                       2             72             16            154
C/C++ Header                     3             26              2            108
CUDA                             7             23             11            106
Bourne Shell                     2             18              7             69
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            149             42
Text                             3              0              0             38
INI                              2              1              0             16
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           250           4680           5484          19423
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit Count by Author

274	romintomasetti
   111	Maarten Arnst
    79	Tomasetti Romin
    38	dependabot[bot]
     1	copilot-swe-agent[bot]

Repository History

Repository age: First commit on August 29, 2025

GitHub Activity Metrics

Metric	Count
GitHub stars	0
Forks	0
GitHub contributors	4
Releases	11
Total issues	14
Total pull requests	484
Unique commenters/reviewers (excluding authors)	5

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1565

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

✅ The paper includes a State of the field section

✅ The paper includes a Software design section

✅ The paper includes a Research impact statement section

✅ The paper includes an AI usage disclosure section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[nkrusch]

👋 @dinesh-rt and @cedricchevalier19 - Thank you for agreeing to review this submission!
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as a new comment in this thread. These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#10067 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@nkrusch) if you have any questions/concerns.

[cedricchevalier19]

Review checklist for @cedricchevalier19

AI usage

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS AI policy and understand that:
  • AI may only be used for non-substantive assistance (e.g., grammar checking my review text, contextualizing public materials)
  • All evaluative decisions—including scoring, accept/reject recommendations, and assessments of originality, correctness, significance, and ethics compliance—must be made exclusively by me, not AI
  • I bear full responsibility for all judgments, recommendations, and technical claims in my review
  • I will disclose any AI assistance at the conclusion of my review

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/uliegecsm/reprospect?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@romintomasetti) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Scope and significance: Does this submission demonstrate clear research impact or credible scholarly significance as described in the JOSS guidelines?
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Development history and open-source practice

• Development timeline: Does the project show evidence of sustained development over time (preferably months or years) rather than rapid, recent code generation?
• Open development: Was the software developed openly from early stages? For projects with recent public repositories, is there at least six months of public development history with evidence of releases, public issues/pull requests, and ideally external engagement?
• Collaborative effort: Does the commit history show contributions from multiple developers and evidence of iterative refinement through community feedback?
• Good practices: Does the project look like a reusable, non-throwaway research software project that follows good open-source practices (license, documentation, tests and/or verification processes, releases, and clear contribution/support pathways).

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

• Summary (required section): Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need (required section): Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field (required section): Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages? If related tools exist, do they provide a clear "build vs. contribute" justification explaining their unique scholarly contribution and why alternatives are insufficient?
• Software Design (required section): Does the paper include a "Software Design" section that explains the trade-offs weighed, the design/architecture chosen, and why it matters? Is the content compelling and does it demonstrate meaningful design thinking?
• Research Impact Statement (required section): Does the paper include a "Research Impact Statement" section providing evidence of realized impact (publications, external use, integrations) or credible near-term significance (benchmarks, reproducible materials, community-readiness signals)? Is the evidence presented compelling?
• AI usage disclosure (required section): Does the paper include an "AI usage disclosure" section that transparently discloses any use of generative AI in the software creation, documentation, or paper authoring?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?