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 designing or auditing a PPoPP paper's evaluation, covering the twin bar of concurrency correctness and measured scalability — speedup curves, strong vs weak scaling, core/thread sweeps, NUMA and GPU effects, contention microbenchmarks plus real…
Use when writing or auditing a PPoPP paper's related-work and positioning, covering the parallel-programming literature lanes (concurrent data structures, runtimes/schedulers, GPU/accelerators, memory models, parallel algorithms), delta-first comparison…
Use when making a PPoPP paper's parallel-performance results reproducible, covering the hardware and topology description reviewers re-run, thread pinning and NUMA control, seeds and warm-up, compiler/driver/flag provenance, and building an environment that…
Use when reasoning about how a PPoPP submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the Program Committee plus External/Extended Review Committee model, TPMS reviewer matching, the author-response rebuttal, the accept/reject decision with automatic…
Use when auditing a PPoPP research-paper submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the two-column acmart sigplan template, the 10-page text+figures budget with unlimited references, the 100-400 word abstract, double-blind anonymity for parallel-systems work,…
Use when deciding what belongs in a PPoPP paper's 10 reviewed pages versus the artifact or appendix, splitting content by decision-criticality so proofs, full core sweeps, and correctness arguments that determine acceptance stay legible in the body, while…
Use when deciding whether a parallel/concurrent-computing project belongs at PPoPP or should be routed to PLDI, CGO, POPL, ASPLOS, HPCA, SC, SPAA, or OOPSLA, and when distinguishing PPoPP's "the parallelism is the point" scope from a compiler contribution…
Use when planning a PPoPP submission campaign end to end, sequencing the summer paper deadline, the author-response rebuttal window, notification, the post-acceptance CGO-shared artifact-evaluation round, the camera-ready, and the presentation inside the…
Use when drafting or tightening a PPoPP paper's prose and structure, covering the two-column acmart sigplan layout, the 10-page text+figures budget, stating the concurrency-correctness and scalability claim up front, presenting speedup curves and core sweeps,…
Use when packaging an ACM SIGMETRICS artifact for the ACM Artifact Review and Badging scheme (Artifacts Available, Evaluated Functional and Reusable, Results Reproduced), covering what performance-evaluation evaluators check first (does the simulation…
Use when responding to ACM SIGMETRICS reviews, covering any initial rebuttal and — distinctively — the one-shot revision response letter that must map every item on the reviewers' required-changes list to a concrete change in the revised POMACS paper,…
Use when preparing an accepted ACM SIGMETRICS paper for its POMACS camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the acmsmall template and POMACS journal metadata (DOI, ORCID, CCS concepts), incorporating the shepherd's required changes without scope creep,…
Use when designing or auditing ACM SIGMETRICS evaluations, covering theorem-plus-validation rigor, stating and testing modeling assumptions, analysis-vs-simulation agreement, real workloads and traces, fairly tuned baselines, statistics and confidence…
Use when positioning an ACM SIGMETRICS submission against the performance-evaluation literature across SIGMETRICS/POMACS, Performance Evaluation, QUESTA, TON, and the systems/learning/measurement neighbors (NSDI/OSDI, IMC, NeurIPS/ICML), writing delta-first…
Use when strengthening ACM SIGMETRICS reproducibility, covering proofs and their assumptions as reproducible artifacts, seeded simulators whose figures regenerate and match the analysis, measurement/trace provenance, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees…
Use when reasoning about how an ACM SIGMETRICS submission is evaluated, covering the hybrid conference-journal model, double-anonymous review, the three first-round outcomes (Accept-with-shepherding / One-Shot Revision / Reject), the one-shot revision…
Use when auditing an ACM SIGMETRICS submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the choice among the three rolling deadlines (summer/fall/winter), the separate abstract-registration step, the 20-page single-column acmsmall budget plus unlimited references,…
Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM SIGMETRICS paper body versus its appendices and anonymized artifact, covering the 20-page single-column acmsmall budget, the rule that decision-critical claims (theorem statements, assumptions, headline validation)…
Use when deciding whether a computer-systems performance project belongs at ACM SIGMETRICS or should be routed to IMC, SIGCOMM/NSDI/OSDI, INFOCOM, a learning venue (NeurIPS/ICML), or a performance journal (Performance Evaluation/TON/QUESTA), and when picking…
Use when planning an ACM SIGMETRICS project timeline across the three rolling deadlines (summer/fall/winter), from venue fit through abstract registration, submission, shepherding, the one-shot revision round, POMACS publication, and presentation, with…
Use when revising an ACM SIGMETRICS paper for a rigorously stated performance contribution on the first page, explicit modeling assumptions and their validity, theorems paired with numerical/empirical validation, evidence proportional to the claim,…
Use when preparing an accepted ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper's tool and data for the Artifact Evaluation track, targeting the ACM Artifacts Available and Artifacts Reusable badges on the track's own deadline, with the badge shown on the…
Use when drafting ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) author responses, covering the double-anonymous rebuttal that must first survive the early-rejection gate and — distinctively — the criteria-bound revision-round summary-of-changes that maps…
Use when preparing the ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) camera-ready after acceptance or a successful revision, covering systematic de-anonymization, the extra content page, the mandatory Data Availability finalization, the correct IEEE/ACM…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper, covering real subject systems, fair runnable tool baselines, task-matched effectiveness metrics, ablations that isolate a learned component, oracle and…
Use when writing the related-work and positioning of an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper, covering the automated-SE literature lanes, delta-first positioning against prior tools/techniques, fair head-to-head framing, and double-anonymous…
Use when building the open-science and reproducibility story for an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) submission, covering the mandatory Data Availability Statement, anonymized-but-runnable tools, tool and subject-system provenance pinning, cached…
Use when reasoning about how an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-rejection stage before rebuttal, the Accept / Revision / Reject outcomes, the criteria-bound revision…
Use when auditing an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research-track submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the ACM acmart sigconf template and the 10+2 page budget, double-anonymous review, the mandatory Data Availability Statement, the…
Use when deciding what belongs in the 10-page ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper body versus the artifact and supplementary material, splitting content by decision-criticality so nothing that decides acceptance lives outside the reviewed…
Use when deciding whether a software-engineering project belongs at ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) or should be routed to ICSE, ESEC/FSE, ISSTA, a PL venue, or an SE journal, and when distinguishing ASE by its automation-centric contribution…
Use when planning an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research-track campaign backward from the deadline, through abstract registration, the double-anonymous submission, the early-rejection gate, rebuttal, the criteria-bound revision round,…
Use when shaping the prose and structure of an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research paper, covering the automation-first first-page arc, stating the automated task precisely, keeping the tool runnable and the model-swap test in mind,…
Use when converting an accepted ACM CoNEXT paper's package into optional ACM reproducibility badges via the CoNEXT reproducibility committee — from the badge opt-in due before submission, to the one-page artifact description due within a week of acceptance,…
Use when drafting ACM CoNEXT author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the one-shot "major" revision response letter that must stay double-anonymous, map every "minimum necessary change" to a concrete tracked edit, and…
Use when preparing the camera-ready of an accepted ACM CoNEXT paper for its assigned PACMNET issue — systematically de-anonymizing, completing PACMNET journal metadata and ACM rights/CCS/keywords, permanentizing artifact and DOI links, applying any…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ACM CoNEXT paper — matching evidence to claim shape with real testbeds and deployments, honest and tuned baselines, measurement statistics and uncertainty, trace and config provenance, and…
Use when writing the related-work and positioning of an ACM CoNEXT paper — covering the networking literature lanes (SIGCOMM, NSDI, IMC, SIGMETRICS, MobiCom, CCR), delta-first positioning against the venue's own recent programs, and keeping self-citations…
Use when building the reproducibility story for an ACM CoNEXT paper — pinned traces and configs, a runnable artifact, an honest data-availability posture, and the one-page artifact description the CoNEXT reproducibility committee needs — remembering that the…
Use when reasoning about how an ACM CoNEXT submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the two-round TPC process with online discussion and a TPC meeting, the Accept / Reject / one-shot "major" revision decision categories, the journal-style…