Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

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 theorem-anchored replies inside HotCRP without breaking lightweight double-blind rules.

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 identity, syncing the arXiv full version, and planning the January talk.

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 implementation-led work to co-located ALENEX or to SEA.

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 correctly, and self-citation under lightweight double-blind rules.

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 model assumptions, and certificates for any machine-checked step.

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 of full versions, the September rebuttal, and October decisions.

Use when preparing or auditing a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) submission — the no-page-limit full-version norm, the title-page abstract, 11-point single-column letter format, lightweight double-blind rules, HotCRP entry, and the July AoE deadline with its summary-rejection triggers.

Use when organizing the back matter of a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) submission — there is no supplementary channel, so appendix architecture inside the single no-page-limit PDF does the supplement's job; covers front/back matter split, appendix ordering, and external-archive references.

Use when deciding whether a result is SODA-shaped (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) — concrete algorithmic problems, data structures, and discrete mathematics with quantitative progress — versus routing to STOC/FOCS, ESA, ICALP, ITCS, SOSA, ALENEX, SoCG, or a journal, judged from SODA's algorithms-first identity.

Use when planning a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) campaign end to end — backward-planning to the July AoE deadline, SODA's seat in the theory calendar between STOC and FOCS deadlines, the September rebuttal and October decision, satellite deadlines (ALENEX, SOSA), and the January conference.

Use when writing or revising a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper — headline bounds stated exactly, the title-page abstract that wins bidding, a first-ten-pages overview for triage readers, prior-bound comparison tables, and prose discipline for an uncapped full-version document.

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 Evaluated Functional, and Artifacts Evaluated Reusable.

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 experiments, new data, or promises of future work.

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, and meeting ACM proceedings requirements.

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 isolating the mechanism the design credits.

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 the now-annual systems deadline circuit.

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 preparing the ground for post-acceptance artifact evaluation.

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, and shepherded acceptance outcomes.

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, conflict declaration under PC-chair audit, and desk-reject triage.

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 obligated to read.

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 when to make that call in the project's life.

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 across the SOSP/OSDI/EuroSys circuit.

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 claims inside what the measurements support.

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 proof leans on computation, and optional mechanization.

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 PC asks, and the FOCS resubmission letter after a rejection.

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 camera-ready deadline, and TheoryFest talk preparation.

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, or clearly labeled illustration rather than benchmarking.

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 self-citation double-blind-safe.

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 documents, and determinism for any computation a claim relies on.

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 best-paper designation and rejection each actually mean.

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 policy, and deadline-week sequencing before the November cutoff.

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 between the submission appendix and the arXiv/ECCC full version.

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 is specialized, conceptual, or empirical.

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 the June TheoryFest endpoint.

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 prose that survives the twelve guaranteed pages.

当为《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 稿件准备代码与数据可用性材料、需要判断本刊是否设有独立"制品评审/Artifact Evaluation"环节及如何据实处理时调用。本刊作为中文信息科学综合旗舰，并未采用英文会议式的独立制品徽章流程（现状：待核实/以官网当期为准），本技能说明如何在没有强制徽章制度的前提下，主动提供可用、可查、可复现的代码与数据，撰写诚实的可用性声明，并与英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 的开放科学要求对照。适用于计算机、控制、通信、微电子等各子学科稿件。

当收到《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 外审意见、需要撰写审稿意见答复信与修回说明时调用。指导如何逐条回应每位审稿人与编委的意见、在修改稿中标注对应位置、以数据与理由而非情绪回应质疑、区分"已修改/已澄清/保留并说明"、处理相互矛盾的意见、控制修回轮次与时限，并保持中文学术礼节。适用于退修（大修/小修）后的 revise-and-resubmit 阶段，与英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 的修回习惯相通但以本刊中文流程为准。

当稿件被《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 录用、需要完成定稿、校样（清样）校对与最终提交时调用。覆盖录用后清样一校/二校、中英文摘要与作者信息/单位/基金的最终核对、参考文献与图表的清样级检查、版权协议与版面费缴纳、样刊、DOI 与卷期信息、以及与英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 的区分。适用于从"录用通知"到"正式见刊"之间的定稿阶段，确保清样与作者预期一致、零遗留错误。

当需要为《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 稿件设计与呈现实验、使证据与主张相称时调用。覆盖主张-证据匹配、真实数据与代表性基准、公平对比与统一评测协议、仿真/半实物/硅后实测/理论证明的区分、统计报告与显著性、消融实验隔离贡献、跨子学科（计算机/控制/通信/微电子）的证据范式，以及理论类论文的证明呈现。作为国家级大信息学科综合旗舰，本刊强调科学价值与严谨证据，实验设计需经得起外审推敲。

当需要为《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 稿件撰写相关工作与文献综述、明确本文与已有工作的差异（delta）时调用。覆盖差异优先的定位写法、国内外文献的均衡覆盖（不只引英文也不只引中文）、按技术脉络组织综述、评述栏目与论文相关工作节的不同要求、自引与利益关系处理、以及参考文献著录规范。作为国家级大信息学科综合旗舰，本刊看重创新高度，相关工作是论证"新在哪里"的关键，需客观、充分、有观点。

当需要为投往《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 的稿件保证实验可重复、结果可复现，并撰写数据/代码可用性叙述时调用。覆盖实验环境与来源固定（数据集版本、工具链、随机种子、硬件平台）、仿真与实测/硅后结果的区分、统计报告与随机性控制、跨子学科（计算机/控制/通信/微电子）的可复现要点，以及诚实的可用性声明。作为国家级大信息学科综合旗舰，本刊强调科学价值与可信证据，与英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 的开放科学精神一致。

当需要理解《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 的审稿流程、校准评审预期、判断作者在各环节的可行动空间时调用。覆盖编辑部初审→编委送外审→外审专家评议→复审→主编/编委会终审的链路、三审三校制度（报道级，以官网为准）、审稿原则（公平公正公开客观）、退修（大修/小修）与录用/退稿决定、90 天未获意见可改投的条款、审稿周期与轮次，以及与英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 评审的异同。适用于投稿后到录用前的全过程校准。

当需要按《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 的要求对一篇中文稿件做投稿前完整审计时调用。覆盖官网作者账户注册与 PDF 上传、LaTeX 官方模板排版、栏目自选（评述/论文/快报/学术介绍）、中英文双语摘要与关键词、参考文献与中图分类号、基金著录、版面费与样刊、伦理与学术规范（一稿多投与中英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 择一投稿），以及退稿/退修高风险项的排查。适用于投稿前最后一轮把关。

当需要为《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 稿件规划附录、补充材料与多媒体附件、并决定哪些内容放正文、哪些放补充时调用。覆盖正文与补充的划分原则（决定录用的证据必须在正文）、附录用途、补充材料的格式与容量、多媒体/演示附件、以及各栏目（评述/论文/快报）的差异化处理。作为国家级大信息学科综合旗舰，本刊正文强调科学价值与创新高度，补充材料服务复核而非承载核心论证；具体格式以官网当期须知为准，未确认者标待核实。

当需要判断一项信息科学成果是否适合投《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI)、该投中文版还是英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences、以及应选哪个栏目（评述/论文/快报/学术介绍）时调用。覆盖本刊的科学价值与创新高度门槛、与兄弟刊（计算机学报/自动化学报/电子学报/通信学报/软件学报）的分流、中英文择一投稿关系、大信息学科（计算机/控制/通信/微电子）的适配，以及换核检验等选题自查方法。适用于动笔前的选题与投向决策。

当需要对一篇投往《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 的稿件做从选题到见刊的全流程编排时调用。串联选题与栏目定位、中文写作、实验与可复现、相关工作、投稿审计、三审三校审稿、修回答复、录用定稿校样等阶段，给出各阶段的顺序、交付物、时间意识与所用技能。作为国家级大信息学科综合旗舰，本刊以重大原创与评述为主、强调科学价值与创新高度；本技能是把 12 个 SSI 技能编织起来的总控，并厘清与英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 的择一投稿关系。

当需要按《中国科学：信息科学》(Scientia Sinica Informationis, SSI) 的中文科技写作规范撰写或打磨稿件时调用。覆盖首页弧线（问题→现状不足→贡献→证据→意义）、中英文双语摘要与关键词、标题、量与单位、变量正斜体、图表与公式规范、参考文献著录（GB/T 7714 与否待核实）、中图分类号、基金著录、以及本刊强调的科学价值与创新高度的表达。作为国家级大信息学科综合旗舰，本刊要求中文表达严谨、英文摘要国际可读，与英文姊妹刊 Science China Information Sciences 并行。

Use when packaging a SenSys artifact for the Artifact Evaluation Committee — choosing which of the three ACM badges (Available, Functional, Reproduced) to pursue, building a hardware-optional evaluation path for reviewers without your testbed, documenting energy and hardware provenance, and passing the smoke run that proves functionality.

Use when writing a SenSys Response to Reviewers for a resubmission — treating the reviews as a required-changes contract, mapping each blocking concern to a specific change and the new measurement that closes it, staging the energy and testbed experiments a systems revision demands, and keeping the response anonymous and in the CFP's form.

Use when preparing an accepted SenSys camera-ready — de-anonymizing the double-column ACM final, completing ACM rights and metadata, restoring acknowledgments, landing the awarded ACM artifact badges onto the paper, releasing traces and firmware within their constraints, and planning the in-person talk and demo for the merged audience.