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 lives in the ISSTA 18-page body versus the artifact and any appendix, covering the no-unlimited-appendix reality, what reviewers will and will not open, splitting a testing/analysis paper between body and package, anonymity of…
Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ISSTA fit versus ICSE, FSE, ASE, ICST, PLDI/CAV, or an SE journal, identifying whether the contribution is a testing/analysis technique, characterizing its evaluation shape, and sharpening the framing before…
Use when planning an ISSTA project timeline from venue fit through the January research-paper deadline, the March author response, the April first decision, the May Major-Revision sprint, the June final decision, artifact evaluation, and the October…
Use when revising an ISSTA paper for a clear testing/analysis contribution, covering the threat-model-then-technique structure, the evaluation contract, a threats-to-validity section that is not boilerplate, claims scoped to the subjects tested,…
Use when packaging a MobiSys artifact for the Artifact Evaluation Committee — choosing among the three independent ACM badges (Available, Evaluated–Functional, Results Reproduced), building the workflow scripts the single-blind AEC runs on its own machines,…
Use when drafting a MobiSys rebuttal after round-2 reviews — working within the scope limit (correct factual errors, answer specific reviewer questions), adding only directly-responsive new results, promising camera-ready work honestly, staying double-blind,…
Use when preparing an accepted MobiSys paper for the ACM Digital Library camera-ready — de-anonymization, the ACM double-column final layout and 12-page budget, ACM rights and CCS metadata, delivering any results promised in the rebuttal, coordinating the…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a MobiSys submission — building real-device testbeds, instrumenting energy and thermal behavior, measuring latency and frame-rate tails, bounding memory footprint, choosing tuned system baselines, and running…
Use when positioning a MobiSys submission against the mobile-systems literature — offload, on-device ML, mobile OS and runtimes, sensing services, and energy — covering the right lanes, handling concurrent work, verifying that cited "MobiSys papers" are…
Use when strengthening MobiSys reproducibility evidence — capturing device, SoC, OS build, framework and model versions, power-instrument setup, seeds, and thermal conditions so an on-device result survives a different phone, deciding what data and firmware…
Use when explaining or planning around MobiSys peer review — the two-round process with an early-reject cut after round 1, the round-2 rebuttal window, double-blind HotCRP mechanics, the systems-and-services reviewer pool, and decision criteria for on-device…
Use when auditing a MobiSys submission for HotCRP readiness — the paper-registration prerequisite, the single December UTC deadline, the 12-page double-column body including figures and tables, double-blind anonymity including device and trace giveaways,…
Use when preparing MobiSys supplementary material — appendices, extra device sweeps, protocol details, demo video and media, and anonymized artifacts under the 12-page-body, double-blind, and reviewer-discretion constraints, including how to split a…
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at MobiSys — testing whether the core contribution is a mobile or embedded system, application, or service whose on-device behavior is the result, and routing wireless, sensor-network, distributed-systems, ubicomp,…
Use when planning a MobiSys project timeline backward from the single early-December paper deadline through registration, two-round review with an early-reject cut, the rebuttal, notification, artifact evaluation, camera-ready, and the June conference — with…
Use when revising a MobiSys paper for a mobile-systems first page, the pain → system-design → on-device-evidence arc, 12-page double-column compression, double-blind wording, and claims disciplined by measured latency, energy, memory, and thermal budgets…
Use when packaging a SenSys artifact for the Artifact Evaluation Committee — choosing which of the three ACM badges (Available, Functional, Reproduced) to pursue, building a hardware-optional evaluation path for reviewers without your testbed, documenting…
Use when writing a SenSys Response to Reviewers for a resubmission — treating the reviews as a required-changes contract, mapping each blocking concern to a specific change and the new measurement that closes it, staging the energy and testbed experiments a…
Use when preparing an accepted SenSys camera-ready — de-anonymizing the double-column ACM final, completing ACM rights and metadata, restoring acknowledgments, landing the awarded ACM artifact badges onto the paper, releasing traces and firmware within their…
Use when designing or auditing a SenSys evaluation — energy and low-power measurement with a named instrument, real-testbed and deployment realism, honest sensor ground truth, on-device latency and memory, and same-hardware baselines, so the evidence meets…
Use when positioning a SenSys paper against the sensing, embedded, IoT, and on-device-AI literature — sweeping the right venue lanes after the SenSys/IPSN/IoTDI merger, proving each citation's venue via dblp/ACM DL against the MobiCom/NSDI/IPSN traps,…
Use when making a SenSys result reproducible across a different testbed — capturing energy-measurement method, hardware and firmware provenance, sensor ground-truth protocol, and deployment conditions while the testbed is still live, and deciding early which…
Use when interpreting SenSys's two-deadline, self-contained review model — what a first-deadline outcome means, that a reject may return at the second deadline only with a substantive revision and Response to Reviewers, how systems reviewers weigh energy and…
Use when running the final pre-upload audit of a SenSys submission — confirming the right per-edition HotCRP site and which of the two deadlines is open, the AoE cutoff in local time, the 12/6-page double-column cap, the double-blind sweep including hardware…
Use when deciding what goes in a SenSys paper's body versus its unlimited references and appendices versus HotCRP fields — keeping the double-column body carrying the argument, moving full protocols, extra plots, and derivations to the appendix, blinding…
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at SenSys after the 2026 merger absorbed IPSN and IoTDI — testing whether the contribution is a built, measured sensing/embedded/IoT/on-device-AI system rather than a pure algorithm, a mobile-networking mechanism,…
Use when planning a SenSys campaign against the two-deadline calendar — deciding which deadline to target and which edition it feeds, backward-scheduling so energy campaigns and long-term deployments finish before freeze, budgeting time for the…
Use when drafting or revising a SenSys paper's abstract, introduction, and system sections — building the sensing-pain to mechanism to measured-behavior arc inside the double-column limit, putting the buildable system on the first page, reporting energy and…
Use when packaging an ACM SIGCOMM paper's code, traces, topologies, and configuration for the artifact-evaluation committee — choosing ACM badges (Artifacts Available, Evaluated, Results Reproduced) as claim calibration, building downscaled topologies and…
Use when drafting an ACM SIGCOMM rebuttal or executing a shepherd-run one-shot revision — triaging reviewer issues, writing a decision-focused anonymous rebuttal for the discussion phase, and building the revision packet (point-by-point response,…
Use when preparing an accepted ACM SIGCOMM paper for the TAPS proceedings — clearing shepherd sign-off in HotCRP, uploading the final PDF plus source under acmart, de-anonymizing author and deployment identity, keeping the 12-page body under ACM two-column…
Use when designing or auditing ACM SIGCOMM experiments — climbing the evidence ladder from microbenchmarks to testbed and trace replay to deployment, choosing baselines that match the deployed state of the art, reporting tail percentiles and variance over…
Use when positioning an ACM SIGCOMM submission against the networking literature — sweeping SIGCOMM, NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, and SIGMETRICS plus journals, proving each placement via dblp and the ACM Digital Library, distinguishing main-track papers from…
Use when strengthening the reproducibility evidence of an ACM SIGCOMM paper — topology and testbed ledgers, traffic workload and trace provenance, configuration and version pinning, tail-percentile run counts and variance, legal data-release decisions, and…
Use when explaining or planning around ACM SIGCOMM peer review — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, the early-reject cut for consensus rejections, the rebuttal for discussion-phase papers, the shepherd-run one-shot revision that ends in accept or reject only,…
Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an ACM SIGCOMM submission — the abstract-registration-then-paper sequence on the SIGCOMM HotCRP site, the AoE deadline clock, the 12 single-spaced pre-reference pages including figures and tables, double-blind…
Use when organizing the material around an ACM SIGCOMM paper — deciding what lives in the 12-page body versus references versus optional appendices, keeping the main paper self-contained, anticipating the shepherd's appendix-necessity approval, and placing…
Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ACM SIGCOMM fit, choosing the research versus experience track, identifying the networking-stack mechanism at the core of the contribution, and routing misfits to NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, SIGMETRICS, or a…
Use when planning an ACM SIGCOMM project timeline around the single yearly deadline — venue fit, evidence lock, abstract registration and paper upload in February, the early-reject/rebuttal/one-shot-revision review pipeline, shepherd-run camera-ready, TAPS…
Use when revising an ACM SIGCOMM paper for its house style — leading with measured operational pain, stating a design principle rather than a behavior, pairing every claim with testbed/trace/deployment evidence, reporting tails instead of superlatives, and…