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 planning a PLDI campaign across its annual clock — backward-planning from the November deadline through winter reviewing, the February response window, March notification, post-acceptance artifact evaluation, PACMPL production, and the June…
Use when revising a PLDI draft for the venue's voice — design insight before tool name, mechanisms instead of adjectives, a running example that carries the semantics, honest limitation statements, and prose that fits the single-column acmsmall journal format…
Use when preparing a SIGMOD paper's code and data for the Availability & Reproducibility Initiative (ARI), covering the post-acceptance opt-in, HotCRP artifact registration, the Artifacts Available / Artifacts Evaluated / Results Reproduced badges, evaluator…
Use when writing SIGMOD author feedback during a PACMMOD round or the revision letter after a major/minor-revision verdict, covering the mid-round feedback window, the four-page letter limit, per-reviewer change highlighting, the extra content page, and…
Use when converting an accepted SIGMOD research paper into its PACMMOD journal version, covering the port from the ACM submission template to PACMMOD format, de-anonymization, per-round issue placement, ACM DL metadata, conference presentation logistics, and…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a SIGMOD paper, covering workload realism and standard benchmark usage, baseline tuning fairness, scalability and tail-latency methodology, ablations that isolate the mechanism, and the setup disclosure a…
Use when readying a SIGMOD research-track submission for a PACMMOD round, covering the abstract-plus-COI pre-deadline, Microsoft CMT mechanics, the 12-page ACM-template limit, double-anonymous rules, the 10-paper author cap, the 12-month rejection embargo,…
Use when judging whether a project belongs at SIGMOD's research track, comparing it against PVLDB's rolling model, ICDE, PODS, KDD, CIDR, and TODS, weighing the industrial track for deployment papers, and testing whether the contribution is genuinely a…
Use when revising a SIGMOD research paper's prose and structure, covering the data-management framing readers expect on page one, running examples and architecture figures, scoping systems claims to measured workloads, third-person anonymity phrasing, and…
Use when deciding what evidence objects a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper must ship, given that STOC runs no artifact-evaluation track — the durable artifact is the public full version on arXiv/ECCC, plus verifiable certificates whenever a…
Use when planning author-side communication for a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) submission, where no standing rebuttal phase exists — covering pre-emptive writing that answers objections in advance, chair-mediated technical clarifications if the…
Use when converting a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) acceptance into publishable form — the ACM proceedings version, de-anonymization, rights forms, the CFP-level expectation that the full paper with proofs goes public on arXiv or ECCC by the…
Use when judging whether computation belongs in a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper at all — STOC accepts on theorems, with no empirical-evaluation expectation — and when it does, scoping it as certified proof computation, constructive search,…
Use when positioning a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper against the theory literature — tracing bound-improvement lineages, citing conference/journal/preprint version pairs correctly, handling concurrent arXiv and ECCC work, and keeping…
Use when hardening a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper so its results can be independently checked — proof completeness across the extended-abstract/full-version split, single-source builds that prevent statement drift between the two…
Use when reasoning about how a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) submission is evaluated — the SIGACT program-committee model with external subreviewers, HotCRP mechanics, double-blind conflicts, the November-to-February decision arc, and what…
Use when auditing a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) submission for HotCRP readiness — the abstract + table-of-contents + first-12-pages reading rule, single-column 11-point format, double-blind hygiene, the SIGACT prior/simultaneous-publication…
Use when architecting everything beyond the first twelve pages of a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) submission — the discretionary-read appendix, the reviewed table of contents, theorem-to-proof pointer discipline, and the division of labor…
Use when deciding whether a result belongs at STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) — testing for broad theory-of-computation significance versus routing to FOCS, SODA, CCC, ITCS, COLT, CRYPTO, PODC, SoCG, EC, or a journal like JACM/SICOMP when the fit…
Use when planning a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) project calendar — backward planning to the early-November deadline, the STOC/FOCS alternating two-deadline year that theory groups schedule around, full-version and camera-ready milestones, and…
Use when drafting or revising a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper — the theorem-forward first page, informal/formal statement pairing, the technical-overview section that carries acceptance, notation economy for a cross-area committee, and…
Use when packaging artifacts for USENIX Security Symposium evaluation — the mandatory Phase-1 availability check that acceptance is conditional on, the optional Phase-2 push for Artifacts Functional and Results Reproduced badges, and building security…
Use when reviews arrive from a USENIX Security Symposium cycle and the authors must respond — writing the rebuttal that survives online PC discussion, handling required ethics-content revisions flagged mid-review, and working with a shepherd after an…
Use when preparing final papers for the USENIX Security Symposium after acceptance — de-anonymizing, keeping the Ethical Considerations and Open Science appendices current, clearing the mandatory Phase-1 artifact availability check before finals are due, and…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a USENIX Security Symposium paper — building threat-model-faithful experiments, adaptive-attacker analysis for defenses, false-positive and vantage-point rigor for detection and measurement, ethical…
Use when positioning a USENIX Security Symposium paper against prior work — covering the Big-Four security venues plus specialty conferences, handling concurrent submissions across the multi-cycle calendar, citing your own work double-blind, and using…
Use when strengthening reproducibility for a USENIX Security Symposium paper — writing the mandatory Open Science appendix, deciding what can and cannot be shared (exploit code, vulnerable-device data, human-subjects material), and making measurement, attack,…
Use when reasoning about how a USENIX Security Symposium cycle actually decides — early-reject notifications, multi-round reviewing, the retirement of Major Revision in favor of shepherd-approval acceptances, resubmission restrictions between cycles, and what…
Use when finalizing a USENIX Security Symposium submission — the per-cycle HotCRP site, the registration deadline a week before the paper deadline, the 13-page body plus mandatory Ethical Considerations and Open Science appendices, double-blind sweeps, and…
Use when deciding what goes where in a USENIX Security Symposium paper — the 13-page body, the two mandatory one-page appendices (Ethical Considerations, Open Science), optional appendices after the references, and external artifacts — so nothing…
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at the USENIX Security Symposium or a sibling venue — routing among USENIX Security, IEEE S&P, ACM CCS, NDSS, and specialty venues (PETS, SOUPS, RAID, WOOT), and confirming the work has the…
Use when planning a USENIX Security Symposium project end to end — choosing between the two annual cycles, mapping the registration-to-camera-ready calendar for a chosen cycle, sequencing artifact and ethics work early, and coordinating a team across the…
Use when drafting or revising prose for a USENIX Security Symposium paper — threat-model-first structure, calibrated security claims, disclosure narrative woven into the text, 13-page discipline in the USENIX template, and the plain systems-security register…
Use when packaging ACM CCS artifacts for the artifact-evaluation committee and the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, Artifacts Evaluated Reusable, and Results Reproduced — covering what security evaluators inspect, how to make…
Use when drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused…
Use when preparing an accepted ACM CCS paper for the ACM Digital Library proceedings, covering de-anonymization, the ACM sigconf final format, ACM rights and eRights forms, badge placement from artifact evaluation, incorporation of shepherd and minor-revision…
Use when designing or auditing ACM CCS experiments, attack demonstrations, adaptive-attack defense evaluations, security measurements, baselines, overhead and cost reporting, ablations, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on evidence that survives an…
Use when positioning an ACM CCS submission against the security big-four and specialist literature, including arXiv preprints, prior CCS/S&P/USENIX/NDSS papers, concurrent disclosures, CVE and advisory records, and the attack-and-defense lineage that a SIGSAC…
Use when strengthening ACM CCS reproducibility evidence, including the artifact-availability posture, threat-model-to-evidence mapping, attack reproduction steps, defense overhead measurement, measurement-dataset provenance, environment and version pinning,…
Use when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM…