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 preparing the IROS video attachment as evidence — the 60-second/10 MB limit, its own deadline, storyboarding uncut real trials and labeled failures, showing playback speed honestly, anonymizing footage under the double-anonymous cycle, and…
Use when deciding whether a project is a strong IROS fit, routing among ICRA, RSS, CoRL, RA-L, T-RO, HRI, and CASE from IROS's seat on the fall IEEE/RSJ calendar, identifying the integrated-system contribution and its embodiment constraint, and sharpening the…
Use when planning an IROS project timeline from venue fit through the spring paper deadline, the separate video deadline, the summer review silence, the June notification, the July camera-ready, IEEE Xplore publication, registration, and presentation, with…
Use when revising an IROS paper for a task-first opening, an integrated-system narrative, the references-counted-in page budget with no supplementary PDF, double-anonymous wording, demo-speak-to-numbers rewrites, and figure-first structure that carries the…
Use when packaging a MobiCom artifact for the evaluation committee — choosing among the three ACM badges as a calibration of what you can prove, building a hardware-optional reproduction path for evaluators without radios, writing the smoke run that…
Use when writing a MobiCom rebuttal after round-two reviews or executing a one-shot revision — triaging reviewer points by severity, fitting a factual, concession-honest rebuttal into its length limit, and turning a required-changes list into a…
Use when preparing an accepted MobiCom paper for publication — de-anonymizing into the double-column final version, discharging every rebuttal and revision promise, completing ACM rights and metadata, coordinating the artifact-badge timeline, and planning the…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a MobiCom submission — building real-device testbeds, choosing RF and channel measurement methodology, injecting realistic mobility and interference, profiling energy on hardware, picking tuned baselines, and…
Use when building or auditing the related-work of a MobiCom paper — sweeping the SIGMOBILE and networking literature lanes, proving each citation's venue on dblp/ACM DL against the INFOCOM/SIGCOMM/NSDI misattribution traps, positioning against the current…
Use when making a MobiCom result reproducible on a different testbed — recording radio, hardware, channel, and mobility provenance as the runs happen, characterizing the variance that over-the-air measurement introduces, and deciding early which traces,…
Use when reasoning about where a MobiCom paper sits in the two-round review process — the early-reject cut after round one, the released reviews and rebuttal window after round two, the accept / one-shot revision / reject outcome space, reviewer continuity…
Use when running the final pre-upload audit of a MobiCom submission — confirming the right per-edition HotCRP site and round, the AoE cutoff printed as an Eastern clock time, the 12-page double-column cap, the abstract-registration prerequisite, and the…
Use when deciding what goes in the MobiCom 12-page double-column body versus references, optional appendices, and HotCRP fields — placing channel-model derivations, full protocols, and extended measurements outside the cap, keeping the contribution…
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at MobiCom or a sibling venue — testing whether the core contribution is a mobile/wireless-networking mechanism the SIGMOBILE flagship rewards, and routing platform, sensing, broad-networking, security, or ubicomp…
Use when planning a MobiCom campaign across the rolling two-deadlines-per-year calendar — deciding which round to target and which edition it feeds, building a backward schedule that leaves room for over-the-air experiments, and sequencing the two-round…
Use when drafting or revising a MobiCom paper for house style — putting the wireless/mobile mechanism and its operating regime on the first page, pairing every claim with over-the-air measurement, replacing superlatives with percentiles and intervals, and…
Use when packaging ACM RecSys code, datasets, splits, trained models, propensity logs, and seeds as an anonymous in-paper repository during review or a public archive after acceptance, even though RecSys has no separate artifact badge — covering what…
Use when drafting an ACM RecSys rebuttal during the author-response window, covering the short narrative RecSys allows, anonymity, anchoring answers to submitted evidence and the anonymous repository, the recurring objections about untuned baselines, leakage,…
Use when preparing an accepted ACM RecSys paper for camera-ready, covering ACM two-column de-anonymization and reflow, the ACM Digital Library rights/copyright form, metadata and DOI, integrating rebuttal-promised fixes without overreach, releasing the…
Use when designing or auditing ACM RecSys experiments centered on offline-versus-online evaluation — temporal splits, equal-budget baseline tuning, full-ranking versus sampled metrics, off-policy estimators (IPS, SNIPS, doubly robust), A/B tests, exposure and…
Use when positioning an ACM RecSys submission against recommender-systems literature and its neighbors (SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, UAI), including the reproducibility-critique line, arXiv and prior versions, concurrent work, ACM Digital Library archival…
Use when strengthening the reproducibility of an ACM RecSys paper or preparing a RecSys Reproducibility Track submission — pinning dataset versions and splits, tuning baselines under an equal budget, reporting seeds and variance, avoiding sampled-metric…
Use when explaining or planning around ACM RecSys peer review — the mutually-anonymous model with at least three PC members and a Senior PC overseer, the rebuttal phase, how the reproducibility-crisis culture shapes reviewer priorities, the…
Use when auditing an ACM RecSys submission before the deadline — routing between the Main, Reproducibility, Industry and Resource tracks, the ACM two-column content-page budgets with appendices counted inside, double-blind anonymization for recommender…
Use when organizing ACM RecSys supporting material under the venue's no-separate-supplement convention — how to split a recommender paper between the body, the appendix that counts inside the page budget, and the anonymous in-paper repository, so tuning…
Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ACM RecSys fit, routing among RecSys, SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, UAI, CHI, and general ML venues, identifying whether the core contribution is genuinely about recommendation, and choosing the right RecSys…
Use when planning an ACM RecSys project timeline from venue fit through abstract, full paper, the anonymous repository, rebuttal, decision, ACM camera-ready, registration, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for an offline-evaluation recommender…
Use when revising an ACM RecSys paper for a recommendation-first first page, honest offline-versus-online framing, equal-budget baseline claims, leakage-aware evaluation wording, ACM two-column 8-page compression, double-blind phrasing, and claims scoped to…
Use when reviews arrive for a MICRO submission and the rebuttal/revision window opens — triaging reviewer objections by what can change a decision, answering methodology attacks with runs and configs rather than promises, keeping anonymity intact, and staying…
Use when packaging the artifacts of a COLM paper — model weights, training data, prompts, evaluation sets, and cached model outputs — for anonymous review and public post-acceptance release, navigating licenses, API terms-of-service limits, and the absence of…
Use when writing a COLM rebuttal in the OpenReview discussion phase — triaging reviews released in late May, running cache-based follow-up experiments inside the roughly two-and-a-half-week window, answering contamination and baseline-fairness objections with…
Use when converting a COLM acceptance into the final paper — the August 7 camera-ready deadline in 2026, de-anonymization and the one-page acknowledgments allowance, folding rebuttal commitments into the text, publishing on OpenReview, releasing artifacts…
Use when designing or auditing the empirical core of a COLM paper — contamination analysis for evaluation data, fair baselines under matched prompting and compute, pinned model versions and decoding parameters, uncertainty over runs and samples, scaling…
Use when positioning a COLM paper inside the fastest-moving literature in ML — triaging arXiv-heavy citations, handling concurrent work fairly, citing model and dataset artifacts correctly, distinguishing COLM's three-edition archive from adjacent venues'…
Use when hardening a COLM paper's reproducibility story — pinning open-weight checkpoints and tokenizers, handling API-model drift and deprecation honestly, versioning evaluation harnesses and prompts, disclosing compute, and writing availability statements…
Use when reasoning about how COLM reviews a paper — the OpenReview pipeline from late-March submission through the May review release, the May-June rebuttal window, July decisions, reciprocal-reviewing obligations, the LLM-use rules for reviewers, and how a…
Use when preparing or auditing a COLM submission on OpenReview — the late-March abstract and full-paper deadlines, the strict 9-page main text, double-blind rules banning acknowledgments and identity links, the Code of Ethics acknowledgment, LLM-usage…
Use when deciding what goes into a COLM paper's appendices and supplementary material versus the strict 9-page main text — verbatim prompts, full evaluation configurations, per-task result tables, contamination analyses, human-evaluation protocols, and…
Use when deciding whether language-model research belongs at COLM or should route to ACL/EMNLP, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, or a workshop — applying the object-of-study test, matching against COLM's CFP lanes (training, data, evaluation, inference, safety), and…
Use when planning a COLM submission campaign across the calendar — working backward from the late-March abstract and paper deadlines through the May-June rebuttal, July decisions, August camera-ready, and October conference, coordinating co-authors, compute,…