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 whether and how computation appears in a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) paper — a venue that accepts on theorems with no evaluation section expected — covering machine-verified case analyses, computer-discovered…
Use when building the related-work and citation apparatus of a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) paper — tracing result lineages across the FOCS/STOC record, citing arXiv/ECCC full versions with version pins, handling concurrent…
Use when hardening a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) paper's checkability — the theory analogue of reproducibility — via hypothesis ledgers, single-source theorem statements that cannot drift between submission and arXiv versions,…
Use when reasoning about how a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation, double-blind norms the venue adopted years before STOC, the summer decision arc, and…
Use when running the final pre-upload audit of a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission — the April HotCRP deadline clock, the abstract-references-plus-ten-pages attention rule, the 11-point single-column format floor, PDF…
Use when architecting everything after page ten of a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission — a venue with no separate supplement channel where the paper itself continues past the guaranteed-read window — covering body…
Use when deciding whether a theoretical-computer-science result belongs at FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) — testing foundations-level significance, weighing the April deadline against sibling theory venues like STOC, SODA, CCC, ITCS,…
Use when planning a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) cycle end to end — working backward from the April 1 deadline, managing the live post-submission summer of the 2026 cycle, coordinating with the STOC beat, preparing the November…
Use when drafting or revising a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) paper — making the first ten pages carry the whole case to a broad theory committee, pairing informal and formal theorem statements, keeping single-column 11-point prose…
Use when packaging an artifact for an accepted OOPSLA paper under the SPLASH artifact-evaluation track — surviving the kick-the-tires phase, earning the Functional and Reusable badges, depositing a Zenodo snapshot with a DOI for Available, and aligning…
Use when writing an OOPSLA author response inside the short per-round window — reading reviews through the four-outcome lens (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject), steering borderline papers toward a revision outcome instead of rejection, and…
Use when converting an accepted OOPSLA paper into its PACMPL journal article — final acmsmall formatting within the 25-page revision cap, de-anonymization and Data-Availability Statement updates, ACM open-access and rights steps, hitting the OOPSLA1 (April)…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an OOPSLA paper — matching evidence type to claim type across the venue's spread (benchmarks, corpus studies, case studies, user studies, mechanized proofs), building baselines and workloads that survive the…
Use when building an OOPSLA related-work section — positioning against the PACMPL family (POPL, PLDI, ICFP, OOPSLA itself) plus ECOOP, Onward!, and SE venues, citing journal-era OOPSLA papers in PACMPL volume/issue form, verifying every venue attribution on…
Use when hardening an OOPSLA paper's empirical claims to the SIGPLAN Empirical Evaluation Guidelines — managed-runtime measurement discipline, warmup and variance reporting, corpus and benchmark provenance, environment pinning, and a Data-Availability…
Use when explaining or strategizing around OOPSLA's two-round review machinery — double-anonymous multi-stage reviewing, the four outcomes (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject), reviewer continuity across rounds, round-hopping a Major Revision, and…
Use when preparing or auditing an OOPSLA submission — picking between the two yearly PACMPL rounds, meeting the 23-page acmsmall anonymous format, writing the required Data-Availability Statement, clearing double-anonymous and concurrent-submission checks,…
Use when deciding what rides along with an OOPSLA submission beyond the 23-page body — appendices, full proofs or mechanizations, extended tables, anonymized code — keeping the package double-anonymous, self-consistent with the PDF, and honest about what…
Use when judging whether a project is OOPSLA-shaped — a PL contribution whose evidence spans design, implementation, formalism, or empirical study — and routing within the SIGPLAN family from OOPSLA's seat: POPL for theory-first, PLDI for…
Use when planning an OOPSLA campaign on the two-round clock — choosing October vs March entry, budgeting for Minor or Major Revision paths, mapping acceptance to the OOPSLA1 or OOPSLA2 PACMPL issue, scheduling artifact evaluation, and landing the SPLASH talk,…
Use when revising a draft into OOPSLA's register — design insight stated before the artifact, claims written to be falsifiable, motivating examples that carry semantics, journal-article pacing inside the 23-page cap, and honest threats-to-validity prose that…
Use when packaging a POPL artifact — above all a mechanized proof development in Rocq/Coq, Lean, Agda, or Isabelle — for the post-conditional-acceptance evaluation, satisfying the no-admit/no-sorry completeness rule, mapping paper theorems to proof files,…
Use when drafting a POPL author response during the optional multi-day window — triaging soundness objections against misread definitions, answering "what does Theorem 3 actually assume" questions with pointers rather than new material, staying concise per…
Use when a POPL paper is conditionally accepted — planning the mandatory revision the Review Committee must approve, de-anonymizing for PACMPL Issue POPL, handling ORCID/open-access/APC steps on the ACM side, syncing the paper with its proof artifact, and…
Use when designing the empirical component of a POPL paper — deciding whether evidence should be a mechanization, a prototype, case studies, or benchmarks; reporting proof effort and case-study coverage honestly; and keeping performance numbers in a…
Use when positioning a POPL paper in the semantics, type-systems, and verification literature — stating per-line technical deltas against the nearest formal systems, covering the PACMPL family and LICS/CAV/CPP/TOPLAS neighbors, citing PACMPL-era papers in…
Use when making a POPL paper's results independently checkable — deciding which theorems to mechanize versus hand-prove, maintaining a paper-to-proof correspondence table from day one, keeping on-paper proofs auditable with explicit assumption tracking, and…
Use when interpreting where a POPL submission stands — the full double-blind pipeline from the July HotCRP deadline through reviews, the optional author response, October conditional-acceptance decisions, the mandatory revision gate, Distinguished Paper…
Use when preparing a POPL submission for the single July HotCRP deadline — auditing the 25-pages-of-text acmsmall cap, summary-rejection format rules, full double-blind hygiene for theory papers with public proof repositories, dual-submission exposure, and…
Use when splitting a POPL paper across the 25-page body, the proof appendix, and anonymous supplementary material — deciding which proofs and auxiliary judgments leave the text, packaging proof scripts without identity leaks under full double-blind, and…
Use when deciding whether a project is POPL-shaped — a principle about programming languages carried by definitions and theorems — or better aimed at PLDI's implementation bar, OOPSLA's breadth, ICFP's paradigm focus, or LICS, CAV, CPP, ESOP, and journal…
Use when planning a POPL campaign calendar — backward-scheduling theory and mechanization from the July deadline, riding the October notification into the conditional-acceptance revision and artifact evaluation, landing the January conference, and retargeting…
Use when drafting or revising POPL prose — building the informal-to-formal ramp from a motivating program to definitions to a sharply stated main theorem, keeping notation coherent across 25 pages of text, writing proof sketches that name the hard case, and…
Use when deciding how code, computations, or data attach to a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper — SODA itself runs no artifact track, so this skill covers computer-assisted proof evidence, implementation companions, and when to route the…
Use when drafting the SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) rebuttal — the roughly three-day window between review release in early September and the response deadline, triaging referee misreadings versus real gaps, and writing terse…
Use when converting a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) acceptance into a correct SIAM proceedings entry — following the October final-version instructions, condensing the no-limit submission into the proceedings version, restoring author…
Use when deciding whether and how experiments belong in a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper — SODA's scope includes experimental validation but theorems carry the decision, so this skill designs supporting numerics honestly and routes…
Use when positioning a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper in the algorithms literature — tracing bound lineages across SODA/STOC/FOCS/ESA/ICALP and journals, handling arXiv-first priority culture, citing conference versus journal versions…
Use when hardening the verifiability of a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper, where reproducibility means checkable mathematics — complete proofs in the submitted full version, stable statement-proof correspondence, explicit constants and…
Use when reasoning about how a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) submission is evaluated — the per-edition program committee under joint ACM-SIAM sponsorship, HotCRP triage of a record-size submission pool, lightweight double-blind refereeing…