Menu
Skills in this repository
SkillsMP has collected 3,969 skills from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Open a skill to review its source and details.
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-SkillsShowing 40 of 3,969 collected skills.
Use when deciding what counts as evidence for an ITCS theory claim — proofs as the primary evidence, worked examples and separations that make a model concrete, and the rare, well-scoped illustrative computation or simulation — and how to keep any…
Use when positioning an ITCS paper against the theory literature — writing the delta that proves the model/question is genuinely new, covering the right STOC/FOCS/SODA/CCC/TCC lanes, and staying honest under lightweight double-blind where the reference list…
Use to make an ITCS paper's mathematics independently checkable — complete proofs of every central claim, self-contained definitions, pinned dependencies on prior results, and a matching full version on arXiv/ECCC/ePrint — the pure-theory analogue of a…
Use to model the ITCS reviewing pipeline — a program committee plus external reviewers, conceptual-novelty weighting, lightweight double-blind, no author-response/rebuttal phase, and a single accept/reject decision — and to understand where the (limited)…
Use when auditing an ITCS submission for HotCRP readiness — the early-September abstract-then-paper deadlines, single-column >= 11pt format with no hard page limit, the first-10-pages merits window, complete proofs of all central claims, the lightweight…
Use when splitting an ITCS paper's content between the body, the appendix, and the arXiv/ECCC/ePrint full version — deciding by what a reviewer must verify, so no central proof lives only in a preprint the PC is not obligated to read, while keeping the…
Use when deciding whether a theoretical-computer-science result belongs at ITCS or should be routed to STOC, FOCS, SODA, CCC, ICALP, TCC, or a journal, and when distinguishing ITCS from its depth-first siblings by the conceptual-novelty test — is this a new…
Use to plan an ITCS campaign end to end on its single annual cycle — backward from the early-September deadline through the no-rebuttal review, the November notification, the LIPIcs camera-ready, and the January conference with its Graduating Bits session.
Use when drafting or revising an ITCS paper's abstract, introduction, and technical presentation so the conceptual innovation lands before any theorem, the model is motivated as a lens rather than a tweak, scope and limitations are owned up front, and…
Use when pursuing the Graphics Replicability Stamp (GRSI) or Code Replicability in Computer Graphics (CRCG) recognition for an accepted SIGGRAPH / TOG paper, covering how graphics replicability differs from ACM artifact badging, what volunteers actually run,…
Use when writing the SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers rebuttal, the single 1000-word text-only author response uploaded during the rebuttal window to correct factual errors and answer specific reviewer questions before the Technical Papers Committee…
Use when preparing the final version of a conditionally accepted SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Paper for publication in ACM Transactions on Graphics, covering the second-stage committee verification, TOG journal metadata and DOI, ACM rights and CCS…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a SIGGRAPH / TOG paper, covering head-to-head comparisons against the strongest prior method, ablations, performance/timing reporting with hardware, image/geometry quality metrics, perceptual and user studies,…
Use when writing or auditing the related-work positioning of a SIGGRAPH / TOG paper, covering the computer-graphics literature lanes (rendering, geometry, animation, simulation, imaging, fabrication, learning-for-graphics), capability-delta positioning…
Use when building the reproducibility story for a SIGGRAPH / TOG paper, covering deterministic result regeneration, scene/mesh/weight provenance, hardware and timing disclosure, floating-point and GPU non-determinism, and a code/data release that a reader or…
Use to model the SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers review pipeline and calibrate expectations, covering the single 6-point score scale, the primary/secondary/tertiary reviewer structure, the 1000-word rebuttal, the Technical Papers Committee meeting,…
Use when auditing an ACM SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers submission for Linklings readiness, covering the two-step form-then-upload deadline, the acmart (>=2.16) format and the 7-page conference-track budget, the dual-track vs Journal-only choice,…
Use when planning the SIGGRAPH / TOG supplemental package, especially the results video that reviewers weight heavily, plus comparison galleries, additional results, code and data, and appendices, and when deciding what evidence must live in the 7-page body…
Use before committing a project to SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia / TOG, to decide whether the contribution is graphics-shaped and which venue and track fit, routing among SIGGRAPH, SIGGRAPH Asia, direct-to-TOG, and siblings (CVPR/ICCV, CHI/UIST,…
Use to plan a SIGGRAPH or SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers campaign backward from the deadline, covering the two annual cycles, the form-then-upload two-step submission, the rebuttal window, the Technical Papers Committee decision, conditional-accept…
Use when structuring or revising a SIGGRAPH / TOG technical paper, covering the teaser figure, a results-first first page, the graphics contribution framing (technique + quality/performance), comparison-driven evaluation, honest limitations, and the acmart…
Use when packaging an ACM SoCC artifact for the ACM Artifact Review and Badging scheme (Artifacts Available, Evaluated Functional and Reusable, Results Reproduced), covering what a cloud-systems evaluator checks first, reproducing tail-latency and cost…
Use when drafting an ACM SoCC author response (rebuttal) during a round's response window, covering the single written turn, answering both the systems and the data/measurement reviewer, supplying the tail-latency and cost numbers reviewers ask for, staying…
Use when preparing an accepted ACM SoCC paper for its camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the acmart/sigconf final format and ACM metadata (DOI, ORCID, CCS concepts), integrating reviewer-required changes without scope creep, permanentizing released code…
Use when designing or auditing ACM SoCC evaluations, covering real or realistic deployments over simulation, production or representative workloads and traces, tail-latency and cost as first-class metrics, fair tuned baselines, scale and multi-tenancy…
Use when positioning an ACM SoCC submission against both the systems literature (OSDI, NSDI, EuroSys, ATC, SOSP, SoCC) and the data-management literature (SIGMOD, VLDB), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations…
Use when strengthening ACM SoCC reproducibility, covering the testbed and workload description, released code and traces, provenance pinning for measurement studies, reproducing tail-latency and cost (not just the mean), claim-to-evidence mapping, honest…
Use when reasoning about how an ACM SoCC submission is evaluated, covering dual-anonymous review, the two-round-per-year model with the no-cross-round-resubmission rule, the author-response (rebuttal) period, the joint SIGMOD+SIGOPS reviewer pool that reads…
Use when auditing an ACM SoCC (Symposium on Cloud Computing) research-paper submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the two-round abstract+paper deadlines, the acmart/sigconf 12-page (full) or 6-page (short) budget with unlimited references, dual-anonymous…
Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM SoCC paper body versus its released artifact and appendices, covering the acmart 12-page (full) or 6-page (short) budget with unlimited references, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed…
Use when deciding whether a cloud-computing project belongs at ACM SoCC or should be routed to OSDI, NSDI, EuroSys, USENIX ATC, SOSP, or a data venue (SIGMOD/VLDB), leaning on SoCC's unique joint SIGMOD+SIGOPS identity, its welcome of measurement and…
Use when planning an ACM SoCC project timeline from venue fit through the two-round abstract+paper deadlines, the rebuttal, notification, camera-ready, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a cloud-systems measurement paper and honest handling…
Use when revising an ACM SoCC paper for a cloud-scale problem an operator recognizes on the first page, a contribution at the systems-and-data intersection, evidence measured on a real or realistic deployment with tail latency and cost as first-class,…
Use when packaging a TACAS (ETAPS) artifact for the ETAPS Artifact Badges (Available, Functional, Reusable), covering the two-round model (mandatory, PC-parallel evaluation for tool and tool-demo papers vs voluntary post-acceptance evaluation for research and…
Use when drafting a TACAS (ETAPS) author response for the rebuttal window, covering the short single-round rebuttal, answering soundness and benchmark-fairness objections with checkable evidence, addressing artifact concerns for tool papers, respecting the…
Use when preparing an accepted TACAS (ETAPS) paper for its Springer LNCS camera-ready, covering de-anonymization of a double-blind research paper, the llncs.cls format and LNCS metadata (ORCID, references, the Springer copyright/consent-to-publish form), the…
Use when designing or auditing a TACAS (ETAPS) evaluation, covering shared verification benchmarks (SV-COMP-style task sets), fair baseline configuration and equal time budgets, honest wall-clock/scalability reporting on stated hardware, soundness checking of…
Use when positioning a TACAS (ETAPS) submission against the verification literature across TACAS, CAV, VMCAI, FMCAD, SPIN, and journals (STTT, FMSD), writing delta-first contrast against the nearest tools and algorithms, crediting the benchmarks and solvers…
Use when strengthening TACAS (ETAPS) reproducibility, covering the clean evaluation-VM packaging that the artifact process assumes, pinned dependencies and offline execution, a claim-to-script mapping so every benchmark number regenerates, honest degrees of…
Use when reasoning about how a TACAS (ETAPS) submission is evaluated, covering the per-category blind model (double-blind research vs single-blind tool/case-study), the single annual PC round with a rebuttal, the parallel mandatory artifact evaluation that…