메뉴
Activate when the user wants to prepare a paper for submission to a specific venue. Handles venue-specific formatting validation, anonymization checks for double-blind review, cover letter generation, suggested reviewer identification, and submission checklist completion. Produces a submission-ready package.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | submission-engine |
| description | Activate when the user wants to prepare a paper for submission to a specific venue. Handles venue-specific formatting validation, anonymization checks for double-blind review, cover letter generation, suggested reviewer identification, and submission checklist completion. Produces a submission-ready package. |
Orchestration Log: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to
outputs/orchestration_log.md:### Skill Activation: Submission Engine **Timestamp:** [current date/time] **Actor:** AI Agent (submission-engine) **Input:** Target venue: [venue], paper: [paper.tex / draft.md] **Output:** Submission package prepared: cover letter, anonymization report, checklist
A paper is only as good as its submission package. Many strong papers receive desk rejections because of anonymization failures, formatting errors, or missing cover letters. This engine ensures that the transition from "paper is ready" to "paper is submitted" is error-free and complete.
/prepare-submissionlatex/paper.tex exists and compileslatex/paper.pdf existsFor common IS/CS venues, apply known formatting requirements:
| Venue | Type | Page Limit | Format | Blind | Template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICIS | Conference | 17 pages | AIS template | Double-blind | AIS Electronic Library |
| ECIS | Conference | 15 pages (research) / 12 (short) | AIS template | Double-blind | AIS Electronic Library |
| HICSS | Conference | 10 pages | IEEE format | Single-blind | IEEE |
| WI | Conference | 12 pages | Springer LNBIP | Double-blind | Springer |
| AMCIS | Conference | 10 pages | AIS template | Double-blind | AIS Electronic Library |
| MISQ | Journal | No strict limit (~40-60 pages) | MISQ style | Double-blind | MISQ website |
| ISR | Journal | No strict limit (~30-50 pages) | INFORMS style | Double-blind | PubsOnline |
| EJIS | Journal | ~8000-10000 words | Taylor & Francis | Double-blind | T&F website |
| BISE | Journal | ~8000-10000 words | Springer | Double-blind | Springer |
| JIT | Journal | ~8000-10000 words | Sage | Double-blind | Sage |
If venue is not in the database:
For the identified venue, create a checklist of formatting requirements:
Scan paper.tex for any element that could reveal author identity:
| Check | What to Find | How to Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Author names | \author{}, author names in text | Remove or replace with "Author" |
| Self-citations | "we previously showed (OurName, 2023)" or "in our prior work" | Replace with "(Author, Year)" or rephrase |
| Institutional references | University names, lab names, company names | Anonymize: "[Anonymous University]" |
| Acknowledgments | \section*{Acknowledgments} with grant numbers, names | Remove entirely or anonymize |
| URLs/links | GitHub repos, project websites, personal pages | Remove or anonymize |
| File metadata | PDF properties (author field in LaTeX) | Check \hypersetup{pdfauthor=...} |
| Track changes | Comment markers with author names | Remove % [R3: ... per AuthorName] |
| Funding info | Grant numbers linked to specific PIs | Remove or generalize |
| Supplementary material | Links to identifiable repositories | Use anonymous sharing (e.g., anonymous GitHub) |
Self-citations are the #1 anonymization failure. Scan for:
\author{} in citation keys and text\citep{}/\citet{} keys contain author last names that match paper authorsFor each finding:
paper_deanonymized.tex that preserves the original author informationacknowledgments_hidden.tex file for post-acceptance restoration## Anonymization Report
**Status:** [PASS / FAIL — N issues found]
### Critical Issues (must fix before submission)
- [ ] Line [N]: Self-citation detected: \citep{blask2024} — author name matches paper author
- [ ] Line [N]: "In our previous work (Blask & Funk, 2023)" — explicit self-reference
### Warnings (review recommended)
- [ ] Line [N]: Acknowledgments section contains personal names
- [ ] Line [N]: GitHub URL in footnote may be identifiable
### Passed Checks
- [x] No author names in \author{} (anonymized version)
- [x] PDF metadata clean (pdfauthor field empty)
- [x] No institutional affiliations in text body
# Cover Letter
**To:** [Editor-in-Chief / Program Chairs]
**From:** [Corresponding Author]
**Date:** [Date]
**Re:** Submission of "[Paper Title]" to [Venue]
---
Dear [Editor-in-Chief / Program Chairs / Editorial Board],
We are pleased to submit our manuscript entitled "[Paper Title]" for
consideration [for publication in / at] [Venue Name].
**Summary:** [2-3 sentences summarizing the paper's contribution. What problem
does it address? What does it find? Why does it matter?]
**Relevance to [Venue]:** [2-3 sentences explaining why this paper fits the
venue's scope, mission, or current call for papers. Reference specific tracks
or special issues if applicable.]
**Contribution:** This paper makes [N] contributions to the [field] literature:
(1) [contribution 1], (2) [contribution 2], [and (3) contribution 3].
**Method:** [1 sentence on methodology and key data/evidence.]
[**Special issue / track:** If applicable: "We submit this paper for
consideration in the [special issue name / track name] because [fit]."]
**Declarations:**
- This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under
consideration at another journal or conference.
- All authors have approved the manuscript and agree to its submission.
- [If applicable: Ethics approval was obtained from [institution] (Ref: [number]).]
- [If applicable: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.]
**Suggested Reviewers:** [See Step 4 — include if venue requests/allows this.]
We look forward to your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Corresponding Author Name]
[Affiliation]
[Email]
Save as submission/cover_letter.md (and optionally submission/cover_letter.pdf).
Identify potential reviewers from the paper's own reference list:
Extract most-cited authors from references.bib:
Filter for appropriateness:
Research each candidate:
Select 3-5 suggested reviewers with justification
## Suggested Reviewers
| # | Name | Affiliation | Expertise | Why Suitable | Papers Cited |
|---|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------|
| 1 | [Name] | [University] | [Area] | [1-sentence] | [N] papers cited in our manuscript |
| 2 | [Name] | [University] | [Area] | [1-sentence] | [N] papers cited |
| 3 | [Name] | [University] | [Area] | [1-sentence] | [N] papers cited |
### Excluded (Conflicts of Interest)
- [Name] — co-author of [paper author] on [paper]
- [Name] — same institution as [paper author]
Save as submission/suggested_reviewers.md.
Run these checks on paper.tex / paper.pdf:
| Check | Target | How |
|---|---|---|
| Page count | Within venue limit | Count pages in PDF |
| Word count | Within venue limit (if applicable) | texcount paper.tex or approximate |
| Abstract length | Within venue limit (typically 150-250 words) | Count words in abstract |
| Reference style | Matches venue requirements | Check citation format (APA, IEEE, etc.) |
| Figure quality | Minimum 300 DPI, readable at print size | Check figure files |
| Table formatting | Consistent style, no vertical lines (booktabs) | Scan for \hline vs \toprule |
| Section numbering | Correct and complete | Parse \section{} hierarchy |
| Keywords | Present if required | Check for \keywords{} or equivalent |
| Running head | Present if required | Check \pagestyle configuration |
| Line numbers | Present if required for review | Check \linenumbers |
## Formatting Validation Report
**Target venue:** [Venue]
**Status:** [PASS / N issues found]
| Check | Required | Actual | Status |
|-------|----------|--------|--------|
| Pages | max 17 | 15 | PASS |
| Abstract | 150-250 words | 218 words | PASS |
| References | APA 7 | APA 7 | PASS |
| Keywords | Required | 5 keywords present | PASS |
| Anonymized | Yes (double-blind) | Yes | PASS |
| Figure resolution | 300 DPI | fig1: 300, fig2: 150 | WARN — fig2 low res |
Generate a comprehensive submission checklist tailored to the venue:
## Submission Checklist — [Venue]
### Manuscript
- [ ] Paper compiles without errors (0 errors, 0 undefined references)
- [ ] Within page/word limit ([N] pages / [N] words — limit: [N])
- [ ] Abstract within word limit ([N] words — limit: [N])
- [ ] Abstract passes agent-readability check (domain named, RQ explicit, method + data source named, ≥1 concrete finding, no deferred meaning — see writing-engine Agent-Readability Rules)
- [ ] Keywords included (if required)
- [ ] All [CITE], [DATA], [TODO] placeholders resolved
- [ ] All figures referenced in text and present in figures/
- [ ] All tables referenced in text
- [ ] Bibliography complete (all \citep/\citet resolved)
- [ ] Consistent formatting throughout
### Anonymization (Double-Blind)
- [ ] Author names removed from manuscript
- [ ] Self-citations anonymized
- [ ] Institutional references removed
- [ ] Acknowledgments removed or anonymized
- [ ] PDF metadata cleaned (no author in properties)
- [ ] URLs/links to identifiable resources removed
### Submission Files
- [ ] Manuscript PDF (anonymized)
- [ ] Source files (.tex, .bib, .sty, figures/) if required
- [ ] Cover letter
- [ ] Supplementary materials (if any)
- [ ] Author information form (if required, separate from manuscript)
- [ ] Suggested reviewers list (if requested)
- [ ] Copyright/originality declaration (if required)
- [ ] Ethics statement (if applicable)
### Final Verification
- [ ] All co-authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript
- [ ] Not under review at another venue
- [ ] Submission deadline confirmed: [date]
- [ ] Submission portal accessed: [URL]
Save as submission/submission_checklist.md.
submission/
├── paper_anonymous.tex ← anonymized LaTeX source
├── paper_anonymous.pdf ← anonymized compiled PDF
├── paper_deanonymized.tex ← full version (for records)
├── cover_letter.md ← cover letter
├── suggested_reviewers.md ← reviewer suggestions
├── anonymization_report.md ← anonymization check results
├── formatting_report.md ← formatting validation results
├── submission_checklist.md ← final checklist
└── self_citations.md ← list of anonymized self-citations (for post-acceptance)
📦 SUBMISSION PACKAGE READY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Target venue: [Venue Name]
Paper: "[Title]" — [N] pages, [N] words
Anonymization: [PASS / N issues to fix]
Formatting: [PASS / N issues to fix]
Cover letter: Generated
Reviewers: [N] suggested
📁 Saved: submission/
✅ Checklist: [N]/[N] items completed
⚠️ Open items: [list any remaining items]
→ Review the checklist, then submit at [venue submission URL].
| Scenario | Integration |
|---|---|
| After Phase 6 | Natural next step — prepare for submission |
| After /review-paper + /respond-reviewers | Submit the revised version |
| R&R resubmission | Different cover letter template (revision letter) |
| Writing-engine | Shorten sections if over page limit |
| Verification-engine | Verify citations before submission |
ALWAYS activate when the user writes, drafts, or revises any part of an academic paper. This is the core skill for overcoming writer's block and producing complete first drafts. Provides concrete sentence-level templates, paragraph formulas, and section blueprints for IS/WI/BWL research papers. Works for journal papers (MISQ, BISE, EJIS), conference papers (ICIS, ECIS, WI), and working papers.
Activate when the user wants to audit a paper's empirical or technical claims against a linked code repository — checking whether experiments, datasets, models, metrics, and hyperparameters described in the paper actually exist and match the code. Produces a structured audit report classifying each claim as CONFIRMED, PARTIAL, MISSING, or MISMATCH, with file/line evidence. Useful for reproducibility checks, reviewer due diligence, and pre-submission self-audits of ML/CS/empirical papers that ship code.
Activate when the user needs to generate, refine, or evaluate academic figures, diagrams, or statistical plots. Uses PaperBanana to transform text descriptions or data files into publication-quality illustrations via direct Python API call. Fallback: matplotlib/seaborn.
Activate when the user provides reviewer or co-author feedback (annotated PDF, pasted comments, or reviewer report) and wants to implement revisions. Extracts review points, maps them to paper.tex locations, classifies actions, implements changes, recompiles, and generates a change log + latexdiff. Handles the full revision loop from feedback to committed changes.
Activate when the user needs to systematically screen papers for a Systematic Literature Review (SLR). Implements the PRISMA-compliant screening pipeline: define inclusion/exclusion criteria, title/abstract screening, full-text screening, quality assessment, and PRISMA flow diagram generation. Takes the literature_base.csv from Phase 1 (Reconnaissance) and produces a filtered, documented, auditable set of included studies.
Activate when the user needs to evaluate whether a research idea is worth pursuing, brainstorm new research directions, or stress-test a paper concept before committing. This is Phase 0 of the paper machine — the gate that decides whether the full 8-phase pipeline should run. Also activates standalone via /evaluate-idea. Integrates Carlini's research philosophy (conclusion-first test, taste for problems, kill conditions, unreasonable effort) with structured evaluation (7 dimensions, RS1-RS8 principles, 3 specialist agents).