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 writing or revising an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper's prose, including the threat-model-first structure, calibrating security claims to evaluated boundaries, the first-round survival test for introductions, SoK voice, and fitting the argument into 13…
Use when preparing an OSDI artifact for sysartifacts-run evaluation — the post-acceptance timeline, the 2026 narrowing to a single Artifacts Available badge, Zenodo-grade permanent archiving, the AE-committee runbook, and the two-page Artifact Appendix that…
Use when handling author-side dialogue in an OSDI cycle — which in 2026 means no rebuttal at all: pre-empting objections inside the submission, then treating the conditional-accept shepherd exchange as the real author response, with a protocol for mandated…
Use when converting an OSDI acceptance into the published paper — the June final-paper deadline, expansion to 14 pages plus appendices, the two-page Artifact Appendix, de-anonymization and restored acknowledgments, USENIX open-access publication from day one,…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an OSDI submission — choosing mature baselines and realistic workloads, structuring the section around research questions, measuring scalability and tail behavior, quantifying the design's costs, and fitting…
Use when positioning an OSDI submission against prior systems literature — covering the OSDI/SOSP/NSDI/FAST/EuroSys/ATC lanes, verifying venues through USENIX's free open-access proceedings and dblp, and citing your own precursors without breaking the…
Use when building reproducibility into an OSDI systems project — recording hardware, configuration, workload, and measurement provenance while experiments run, keeping paper and artifact from drifting apart, and setting up for the post-acceptance sysartifacts…
Use when reasoning about how an OSDI paper is reviewed and decided — the double-blind HotCRP PC pipeline with no author-response period, the two tracks, conditional acceptance with heavyweight shepherding, co-chair recusal, notification timing, and the Jay…
Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an OSDI submission on HotCRP — the December registration and full-paper deadlines at 2:59 pm PST, the 12-page/no-appendix check, institution-level double-blind rules, the renamed-system requirement, track choice,…
Use when deciding where OSDI content lives given the no-appendix submission rule — triaging material between the 12-page reviewed body, the 14-page-plus-appendices final paper, and the public artifact, since OSDI (unlike appendix-friendly venues) reviews…
Use when deciding whether a systems project fits OSDI, choosing between its Research and Operational Systems tracks, or routing the work to SOSP, NSDI, FAST, EuroSys, or the post-USENIX ATC instead — applying the built-and-measured test before a December…
Use when planning or managing a full OSDI cycle — the December title-registration and submission deadlines on HotCRP, the silent no-rebuttal review window, March notification, the May artifact deadline, June shepherded final papers, and the July conference —…
Use when drafting or revising an OSDI paper's prose and structure — building the pain → abstraction → mechanism → measurement narrative, fitting it into the 12-page reviewed body with no appendix escape hatch, and writing for a PC told to down-rank padded…
Use when preparing a SOSP artifact for the post-acceptance evaluation run by the sysartifacts community, registering within days of notification, packaging for the cooperative review process, and targeting the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts…
Use when drafting a SOSP author response during the pre-PC-meeting rebuttal window, keeping it within the venue's norms — correcting factual errors, answering direct reviewer questions, staying near the 500-word guidance, and never introducing new…
Use when preparing a SOSP camera-ready after acceptance, working with an assigned shepherd toward the final deadline, expanding from the 12-page submission to the 13-page final limit (14 with shepherd approval), de-anonymizing safely, adding artifact badges,…
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a SOSP paper — mapping every claim to an experiment, choosing baselines a systems PC will accept as fair, mixing microbenchmarks with end-to-end and failure runs, reporting tails and overheads honestly, and…
Use when positioning a SOSP submission against the systems literature — the SOSP/OSDI lineage a PC expects you to know, structural comparison instead of citation listing, third-person self-citation under double-blind rules, and handling concurrent work across…
Use when hardening the reproducibility of a SOSP paper's results before submission — pinning the OS-level environment, recording hardware and topology, making every figure regenerable from logged runs, separating measurement noise from effect size, and…
Use when reasoning about how a SOSP submission is evaluated — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, staged review rounds, PC-chair-audited conflicts, the pre-PC-meeting author response, the single-track PC meeting where every decision is argued live, notification,…
Use when auditing a SOSP submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the abstract-registration and full-paper deadlines, the 12-page technical-content limit with references excluded, the 7x9-inch two-column format, double-blind rules with paper-ID substitution,…
Use when deciding what belongs in a SOSP supplementary document versus the 12-page paper, packaging proofs, extended analyses, and methodological detail as a separate anonymized upload, and keeping review-critical evidence out of material reviewers are not…
Use when deciding whether a systems project is SOSP-shaped — a built and measured artifact embodying an extractable principle in operating and distributed systems — or better routed to OSDI, EuroSys, USENIX ATC, NSDI, FAST, ASPLOS, VLDB, MLSys, or HotOS, and…
Use when planning a SOSP campaign across the annual cycle — back-scheduling from the spring abstract and paper deadlines, running the summer response and July notification, stacking the August camera-ready with artifact evaluation, and retargeting rejections…
Use when drafting or revising SOSP prose — leading with a design principle rather than a feature list, building the intro's problem-to-insight arc, budgeting 12 dense two-column pages across design and evaluation, writing figures that argue, and keeping…
Use when packaging code, datasets, prompts, model outputs, or annotation materials for an ACL submission under ACL Rolling Review, covering anonymized supplement archives, scientific-artifact items of the Responsible NLP checklist, licensing and intended-use…
Use when drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and…
Use when preparing an accepted ACL main-conference or Findings paper for camera-ready, covering the extra content page, de-anonymization and acknowledgements, AI-assistance disclosure, keeping the Limitations section, ACL Anthology metadata and CC BY 4.0…
Use when designing or auditing experiments for an ACL paper, covering tuned LLM baselines, multi-dataset and multilingual evaluation, statistical significance and variance, human evaluation with agreement reporting, contamination and prompt-sensitivity…
Use when positioning an ACL submission against the NLP literature, covering ACL Anthology citation practice, arXiv-versus-published version citation, concurrent LLM-era preprints, prior-cycle ARR resubmission overlap, anonymity-preserving self-citation, and…
Use when strengthening reproducibility evidence for an ACL paper reviewed through ACL Rolling Review, covering the Responsible NLP checklist end to end, hyperparameter and compute reporting, prompt and decoding disclosure for LLM experiments, data…
Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference…
Use when auditing an ACL submission before an ACL Rolling Review cycle deadline, covering long/short paper page budgets, the mandatory Limitations section, Responsible NLP checklist, anonymized PDFs and supplements, preprint declarations, dual-submission…
Use when organizing appendices and supplementary material for an ACL paper under ACL Rolling Review, covering the mandatory Limitations and optional ethics sections, appendices after references, anonymized software and data archives, the no-cloud-links rule,…
Use when deciding whether a project fits ACL versus EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, TACL, Computational Linguistics, COLM, or an ML venue, covering contribution typing for NLP work, long-versus-short paper choice, the annual theme track, Findings-tier expectations, and…
Use when revising an ACL paper for computational-linguistics house style, covering task-first framing, linguistic examples tied to quantitative error analysis, scoping language claims to tested languages, LLM-era claim discipline, anonymous self-reference,…
Use when packaging the artifacts of an EMNLP paper — datasets, annotation guidelines, prompts, evaluation code, and model outputs — as anonymous review-time evidence or public post-acceptance releases, with licensing, data statements, and the inspection order…
Use when drafting an EMNLP author response in the ACL Rolling Review discussion window — triaging replies by soundness versus excitement, deciding what evidence can be added mid-review, staying anonymous, and writing for the area chair's meta-review and the…
Use when converting an accepted EMNLP paper — Main or Findings — into its ACL Anthology camera-ready form: de-anonymization, integrating response-phase commitments, Limitations and checklist-appendix handling, Anthology metadata hygiene, artifact link…
Use when designing or auditing the experimental program of an EMNLP paper — baseline fairness and tuning budgets, dataset and language coverage matched to claims, contamination audits for pretrained and API models, significance testing and seed variance,…