| name | venue-checklist |
| description | Use when the target venue's submission requirements matter — checking a draft against NeurIPS, ICML or ICLR expectations, deciding which required sections (checklist, broader impact, reproducibility, LLM disclosure) the paper needs, or running the Stage 08 submission-readiness review. |
Venue checklists: NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR
Read this when the target venue is set in Stage 03, when locking the Stage 07 outline, and again during the Stage 08 readiness review. The run's venue is in run_config.json and is rendered into every stage prompt under Run Configuration.
When to Read
- Read once when setting the target venue.
- Read again before locking the outline.
- Read again during final submission-readiness checks.
Universal Requirements
Across these venues, the following are usually expected:
- anonymous submission unless preparing a camera-ready version,
- references and appendices outside the main page budget,
- enough experimental detail for reproduction,
- honest limitations and scope boundaries,
- clear mapping from claims to evidence.
NeurIPS
Planning implications:
- The paper checklist is mandatory.
- Claims in the Abstract and Introduction must align with the actual evidence.
- The paper should discuss limitations honestly.
- Reproducibility details, hyperparameters, data access, and compute usage should be documented.
- Statistical reporting should specify error bars, number of runs, and how uncertainty is computed.
Final-check implications:
- Confirm the paper checklist is complete.
- Ensure limitations, reproducibility details, and compute reporting exist somewhere appropriate.
- Verify theory papers include assumptions and full proofs in the main paper or appendix.
ICML
Planning implications:
- The paper must budget space for an ICML-style Broader Impact statement.
- Reproducibility expectations are strong: data splits, hyperparameters, search ranges, and compute should be documented.
- Statistical reporting should state whether uncertainty uses standard deviation, standard error, or confidence intervals.
Final-check implications:
- Ensure the Broader Impact statement is present in the expected location.
- Confirm anonymization is strict: no author names, acknowledgments, grant IDs, or self-identifying repository links.
- Verify experimental details are detailed enough for replication.
ICLR
Planning implications:
- Reproducibility and ethics statements are often recommended even if not always mandatory.
- If LLMs materially contributed to ideation or writing to the point of authorship-like contribution, plan a disclosure section or appendix note.
- Keep the story front-loaded because ICLR reviewers often judge quickly from the early pages.
Final-check implications:
- Decide whether LLM disclosure is required for this project.
- Confirm the paper includes enough reproducibility guidance, code/data availability information, and limitations discussion.
- Check that the contribution is already clear by the end of the Introduction.
Minimal Submission Checklist
Before submission, verify:
- the venue-specific required sections are present,
- the page budget is satisfied for the main body,
- the contribution bullets do not overclaim,
- citations, figures, tables, and references are internally consistent,
- the PDF is anonymized and ready for reviewer consumption.
