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 drafting or revising the prose of an ACM IMC measurement paper, covering the first-page measurement finding, making vantage points and methodology auditable, longitudinal framing for a moving Internet, arguing limitations rather than reciting them,…
Use when packaging an IPSN-lineage artifact for the ACM badges and the IPSN Best Research Artifact Award, covering hardware-plus-software artifacts (firmware, board files, datasets), what sensor-systems evaluators check first, DOI-issuing archives,…
Use when drafting an IPSN-lineage rebuttal, covering the double-blind response to sensor-systems reviewers on ground truth, baseline fairness, deployment realism, energy accounting, and simulation-vs-real-hardware doubts, without leaking identity and without…
Use when preparing an accepted IPSN-lineage paper for camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the ACM Primary Article Template and the dual ACM/IEEE metadata (CCS concepts, ORCID, DOI, IEEE PDF eXpress/e-copyright), integrating required changes without scope…
Use when designing or auditing IPSN-lineage evaluations, covering real testbeds and deployments, ground-truth instrumentation, energy/latency/footprint measurement on real hardware, on-device/TinyML profiling, estimation-theoretic baselines and bounds, and…
Use when positioning an IPSN-lineage submission against the sensor-networks and information-processing literature (IPSN, SenSys, MobiCom, MobiSys, INFOCOM, and signal-processing venues), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping…
Use when strengthening IPSN-lineage reproducibility for a hardware/embedded/deployment artifact, covering firmware and board files, pinned toolchains, raw traces and calibration, honest degrees of reproducibility for a physical system, anonymized-but-runnable…
Use when reasoning about how an IPSN-lineage submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the per-track (IP / SPOTS) program committees, the rebuttal, Best Paper and Best Research Artifact judging, and how IPSN's process differs from SenSys's…
Use when auditing an IPSN-lineage submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the IP-vs-SPOTS track choice, the ACM Primary Article Template and ≤12-page inclusive budget, the double-blind sweep for hardware/deployment papers, dataset/artifact links, and…
Use when deciding what belongs in an IPSN-lineage paper body versus its artifact, appendix, and demo/poster track, covering the ≤12-page ACM two-column budget, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, double-blind…
Use when deciding whether a sensing/embedded project is an IPSN Information-Processing (IP) contribution or a Sensor Platforms, Tools and Design Methods (SPOTS) contribution, and whether it should go to the IPSN lineage (now the merged SenSys at CPS-IoT…
Use when planning an IPSN-lineage project timeline from track/venue selection through the CPS-IoT Week deadline, double-blind submission, deployment and hardware logistics, rebuttal, the Best Research Artifact Award, and the dual ACM/IEEE camera-ready — with…
Use when revising an IPSN-lineage paper for a real sensing problem on the first page, a load-bearing information-processing or platform contribution, ground-truth methodology, energy/latency/accuracy budgets, honest deployment reporting, double-blind wording,…
Use for the PODS analogue of artifact evaluation — there is no systems artifact track at this theory symposium, so this skill covers formal-claims verification instead: a complete at-submission proof appendix, a claim-to-proof mapping reviewers can check, the…
Use when drafting ACM PODS author responses, covering the short ~48-hour double-anonymous rebuttal that corrects misreadings of proofs and definitions, and — distinctively — the shepherded revision cover letter that maps every required item to a concrete…
Use when preparing an accepted ACM PODS paper for its PACMMOD-track camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the final acmsmall format and PACMMOD journal metadata (DOI, ORCID, CCS concepts), integrating shepherd-required revision items without overclaiming,…
Use when designing or auditing the analytical "evidence" of an ACM PODS paper — worst-case and average-case analyses, matching upper and lower bounds, dichotomy completeness, correct complexity assumptions, and the occasional empirical validation when a…
Use when positioning an ACM PODS submission against the database-theory literature across PODS, ICDT, LICS, and the journals (TODS, LMCS, JACM, VLDBJ), writing delta-first contrast that compares results rather than cataloging citations, keeping self-citations…
Use when strengthening the verifiability of an ACM PODS paper — a complete claim-to-proof map, self-contained proofs in the at-submission appendix (no external appendices), correctly stated assumptions, honest scope and open cases, the full-version-on-arXiv…
Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODS submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-anonymous review, the multi-cycle-per-year calendar, the two reviewing rounds within a cycle, the 48-hour rebuttal, the accept/reject/revision decision with a…
Use when auditing an ACM PODS research submission for EasyChair readiness, covering the chosen cycle's abstract-then-paper deadlines, the acmsmall[review,anonymous] format and 15-page budget, the at-submission proof appendix, lightweight double-anonymity, the…
Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM PODS paper body versus its at-submission appendix, covering the acmsmall 15-page budget, the rule that PODS forbids online/external appendices so all proofs ship with the submission, the body/appendix split for a…
Use when deciding whether a data-management project belongs at ACM PODS (the database-theory symposium) or should be routed to SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE (systems), ICDT (its sister theory venue), LICS/ICALP/STOC (pure theory), or a journal (TODS/LMCS/JACM), by…
Use when planning an ACM PODS project timeline across its multiple submission cycles per year, from venue fit through the EasyChair abstract-then-paper deadlines, the 48-hour rebuttal, the accept/reject/revision decision and shepherded revision round,…
Use when revising an ACM PODS paper for a precise model and result on the first page, exact theorem statements with matching bounds, complete and self-contained proofs (body plus at-submission appendix), honest assumptions and open cases, double-anonymous…
Use when packaging an IEEE VIS artifact for the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative (GRSI) / TVCG Replicability Stamp and the IEEE VIS Open Practices program, covering what an independent GRSI volunteer reproduces first, DOI-issuing archives,…
Use when drafting IEEE VIS author responses across the two-phase review, covering the first-round reviewer discussion, and — distinctively — the conditional-accept second-round revision with its summary-of-changes that maps every required change to a concrete…
Use when preparing an accepted IEEE VIS paper for its IEEE TVCG camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the VGTC/TVCG template and journal metadata (DOI, ORCID, IEEE keywords/index terms), integrating the second-round required changes without scope creep,…
Use when designing or auditing IEEE VIS evaluations, covering how to match evidence to the contribution type (perceptual study, controlled user study, algorithm benchmark, design-study validation, qualitative work), controlled experiment design with power and…
Use when positioning an IEEE VIS submission against the visualization literature across TVCG, the six VIS areas, EuroVis/CGF, PacificVis, and adjacent HCI/graphics venues, writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations…
Use when strengthening IEEE VIS reproducibility and open-practices evidence, covering the open-materials statement, anonymized-but-runnable code and stimuli, preregistration of perceptual and user studies, provenance for datasets and rendering pipelines,…
Use when auditing an IEEE VIS full-paper submission for PCS readiness, covering the abstract-then-paper two-deadline structure under the VGTC society, the IEEE VGTC/TVCG 9+2 page budget, author-optional double-blind anonymization, the supplemental-material…
Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE VIS paper body versus its supplemental materials, covering the VGTC/TVCG 9+2 page budget, the supplemental video that VIS reviewers routinely watch, the one-week supplemental deadline extension, double-blind…
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at IEEE VIS or should be routed to EuroVis, PacificVis, CHI, a graphics venue, or the IEEE TVCG journal track, and when choosing among the six VIS areas (Theoretical & Empirical, Applications, Systems & Rendering,…
Use when planning an IEEE VIS project timeline from area fit through the abstract and full-paper deadlines, the two-phase review, the conditional-accept second round, the IEEE TVCG camera-ready, the Graphics Replicability Stamp, and presentation, with…
Use when revising an IEEE VIS paper for a task-grounded visualization contribution on the first page, a design rationale that ties each visual encoding and interaction to a task, evaluation matched to the contribution type, honest limitations, and disciplined…
Use when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory…
Use when drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean…
Use when preparing an accepted AAMAS paper for the IFAAMAS open-access camera-ready, covering author de-anonymization, proceedings metadata, two-column reflow of game figures and learning curves, resolving rebuttal-stage promises, registration, in-person…
Use when designing or auditing AAMAS experiments - self-play and population-based training, opponent selection, equilibrium and regret metrics, game-theoretic simulations, ablations, seeds, hyperparameters, compute, and claim-to-evidence fit - with emphasis…