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 a UIST paper — structuring the systems-paper arc (walkthrough before mechanism), writing an implementation section with real technical depth, pairing every capability claim with a figure or measurement, and fitting the argument…
Use when positioning a CIKM submission against three literatures at once — retrieval, mining, and knowledge management/databases — building the boundary-work paragraph, guarding against misattributing SIGIR/KDD/ICDM classics to CIKM, and handling preprints…
Use when reasoning about CIKM peer review — the EasyChair double-blind pipeline, the mixed IR/data-mining/knowledge-management reviewer pool, per-track evaluation criteria, the ACM Peer Review Policy including the no-AI-written-reviews rule, notification…
Use when preparing an ASPLOS artifact for the post-acceptance evaluation committee — writing the ae.tex Artifact Appendix with software/hardware/dataset dependencies, targeting the Available / Functional / Reproducible badges, archiving on a public…
Use when drafting an ASPLOS author response inside the short fixed window — triaging reviews into factual errors versus questions versus disagreements, budgeting for the ~800 words reviewers are expected to read, arguing only from evidence already in the…
Use when converting an ASPLOS acceptance or Major Revision decision into a publishable ACM paper within the six-week window — de-anonymization, ACM rights and template obligations, the revision change note, artifact-appendix integration and badge placement,…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ASPLOS paper — choosing among real silicon, FPGA prototypes, and simulators with cycle-accuracy caveats stated, selecting workload suites and baselines that hold up across three communities, attributing wins…
Use when positioning an ASPLOS submission against three communities' literatures at once — covering the architecture, OS/systems, and PL/compiler lanes plus accelerator and prior-ASPLOS lines, handling own-work and arXiv material under the 2027 double-blind…
Use when hardening an ASPLOS paper's results for independent repetition — pinning simulator versions and configs, recording kernel/firmware/BIOS state, packaging FPGA bitstreams and RTL, documenting hardware dependencies an evaluator may lack, and writing…
Use when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set, how revisions are re-reviewed as…
Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an ASPLOS submission — the 11-page limit covering figures/tables/footnotes with references excluded, the mandatory template, the no-"et al." full-name citation rule, hyperlinked DOIs, double-blind hygiene, GenAI…
Use when deciding what goes into an ASPLOS submission's appendices versus the 11 self-contained pages — applying the rule that reviewers are neither required nor encouraged to read supplemental material, using anonymized supplements for unciteable own work,…
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at ASPLOS or at a single-community venue — applying the cross-layer deletion test, matching against ASPLOS's architecture/PL/OS intersection identity, routing to ISCA/MICRO/HPCA, PLDI/POPL, SOSP/OSDI/EuroSys, SC, or…
Use when planning an ASPLOS campaign across the two-deadline cycle — sequencing evidence building, the September 9, 2026 submission gate, author-response windows, the December 21 notification, Major Revision resubmission six weeks later, artifact evaluation,…
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything…
Use when packaging the code, datasets, knowledge graphs, prompts, and demo systems around a CIKM paper — choosing the artifact form per track (research, applied, resource, demo), meeting the resource track's reuse-and-documentation bar, and staging anonymous…
Use when preparing author-side communication around CIKM reviews — drafting for a response window if the cycle offers one (unconfirmed for 2026), writing camera-ready revision notes that answer reviewer concerns, handling post-decision chair correspondence,…
Use when turning an accepted CIKM paper into its ACM proceedings version inside the short notification-to-camera-ready window, covering de-anonymization, the e-rights and TAPS pipeline into the ACM Digital Library, CCS concepts and metadata, GenAI-disclosure…
Use when designing or auditing the empirical program of a CIKM paper — matching evidence to the claim's lanes across retrieval, mining, and knowledge-management evaluation cultures, choosing datasets and baselines that survive a blended panel, isolating the…
Use when hardening the reproducibility of a CIKM paper — pinning the pipeline stages where IR, mining, and knowledge-management results silently diverge, documenting KGs and enterprise data that cannot be released, keeping the GenAI disclosure consistent with…
Use when auditing a CIKM submission for EasyChair readiness across the five tracks, covering page budgets with appendices counted inside, the mandatory GenAI Usage Disclosure section, author-reviewer nomination, double-blind rules with arXiv declaration, the…
Use when deciding what supporting material accompanies a CIKM submission given budgets that count appendices inside the page limit, structuring the in-PDF appendix versus the anonymously cited artifact, keeping both double-blind, and handling the uncounted…
Use when deciding whether a project fits CIKM, the tri-community ACM venue spanning information retrieval, data mining, and knowledge management/databases, when weighing CIKM against SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, SIGMOD/VLDB, or ISWC, and when choosing among…
Use when planning a CIKM project calendar across the May abstract/paper gates, June short-track gates, August notification and camera-ready, and the November conference, including the post-submission phase now live in the 2026 cycle, multi-track coordination,…
Use when revising a CIKM manuscript for the tri-community readership — writing an opening that lands with IR, data-mining, and knowledge-management reviewers simultaneously, compressing into appendix-inclusive page budgets, keeping claims inside the evidence,…
Use when preparing a EuroSys artifact for the sysartifacts-run evaluation — choosing among the Available, Functional, and Reproduced badges, timing the post-notification artifact submission, building for an evaluator on foreign hardware, and aiming at the…
Use when writing a EuroSys rebuttal or managing a one-shot revision — reading reviews against the three possible outcomes (accept, revise, reject), answering systems reviewers' measurement and design objections, and turning a revision offer's condition list…
Use when converting an accepted EuroSys paper into its ACM proceedings version — flipping acmart out of review/anonymous mode, restoring authors and acknowledgments, completing ACM rights and metadata steps, attaching sysartifacts badges, and meeting the…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a EuroSys paper — choosing workloads that earn the word realistic, tuning baselines beyond their defaults, decomposing end-to-end wins into per-mechanism gains, measuring overheads and worst cases, and sizing…
Use when positioning a EuroSys submission in the systems literature — mapping the SOSP/OSDI/NSDI/ATC/ASPLOS neighbor space plus EuroSys's own two-decade proceedings line, handling concurrent arXiv and workshop versions under double-blind rules, and declaring…
Use when hardening the reproducibility story of a EuroSys paper — recording hardware and software provenance for every number, taming performance variance with repeated runs and dispersion reporting, versioning workloads and traces, and writing an…
Use when reasoning about how EuroSys decides papers — the two independent yearly rounds feeding one April conference, HotCRP double-blind reviewing, the accept/revise/reject outcome triple, the same-season resubmission ban after rejection, and community…
Use when auditing a EuroSys submission before a HotCRP upload — abstract registration versus full-paper gates, the 12-page technical-content budget with free references, the acmart sigplan review/anonymous template and text block, double-blind hygiene, and…
Use when deciding what lives outside a EuroSys paper's 12 technical pages — free reference pages, whether the current round permits appendices or supplementary uploads, anonymized artifact repositories linked from the submission, and extended technical…
Use when deciding whether a systems project belongs at EuroSys — the ACM SIGOPS-Europe flagship spanning OS, distributed systems, storage, cloud, virtualization, security, and ML systems — or routes better to SOSP, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, ATC, FAST, or SoCC, and…
Use when planning a EuroSys campaign end to end — choosing between the spring and fall gates of an edition, backward-scheduling system building and evaluation from the abstract deadline, handling the notification-to-revision-to-resubmission pipeline, and…
Use when drafting or revising EuroSys prose — building the problem-to-mechanism arc systems reviewers expect, budgeting the 12 technical pages across design and evaluation, writing figure-first evaluation sections, keeping claims measurement-scoped, and…
Use when planning the durable evidence objects around a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) paper — a venue with no artifact track where the public arXiv/ECCC full version is the artifact of record, plus proof certificates, checker code,…
Use when managing author-side communication around a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission, where no rebuttal round exists — discharging objections inside the paper before submission, handling rare chair-mediated queries, and…
Use when converting a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) acceptance into its deliverables — the IEEE proceedings version with copyright and de-anonymization steps, the public arXiv/ECCC full version the CFP expects, the New York talk,…