Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when performing the final pre-upload audit of a UIST paper in PCS — the abstract-then-paper deadline pair, 10-page/5-page two-column limits with desk-reject enforcement, anonymous acmart options, video-figure and supplementary uploads, the prior-work overlap rule, and deadline-week sequencing.

Use when producing the video figure and supplementary materials for a UIST submission — treating the 3-minute video as near-mandatory evidence in a demo-culture venue, scripting it around claims, meeting the 1080p/4K H.264 spec, anonymizing frames and audio, and deciding what else ships alongside the PDF.

Use when deciding whether a project belongs at UIST — testing it against the interface-systems contribution bar (novel technique, toolkit, or hardware that works), making the CHI-vs-UIST routing call explicitly, and re-routing to CSCW, IMWUT, TEI, ISMAR, IUI, or TOCHI when the artifact is not the contribution.

Use when planning a UIST cycle end to end — the late-March abstract and paper deadlines, the ten-week build-freeze before video production, the rebuttal window, conditional acceptance, the July camera-ready, adjunct-track parallel lanes, and the November conference — with owners and risk buffers.

Use when drafting or revising a UIST paper — structuring the systems-paper arc (walkthrough before mechanism), writing an implementation section with real technical depth, pairing every capability claim with a figure or measurement, and fitting the argument inside the 10-page or 5-page two-column limit.

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 artifacts (exploits, scanners, datasets) that evaluators can run safely.

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 "Accepted on Shepherd Approval" decision.

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 meeting USENIX's open-access publication and presentation obligations.

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 experimentation on live systems, and honest baselines.

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 USENIX's open-access proceedings for verification.

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, and defense results independently regenerable.

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 each notification email means for planning.

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 the early-reject exposure of a weak upload.

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 decision-critical lands where reviewers won't look.

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 artifact/measurement/systems evidence USENIX Security rewards.

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 multi-deadline Big-Four calendar.

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 this program committee rewards.

Use when packaging an IEEE VIS artifact for the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative (GRSI) / TVCG Replicability Stamp and the IEEE VIS Open Practices program, covering what an independent GRSI volunteer reproduces first, DOI-issuing archives, evaluator-proof documentation for visualization code and data, and how VIS reproducibility differs from ACM-style artifact badges.

Use when drafting IEEE VIS author responses across the two-phase review, covering the first-round reviewer discussion, and — distinctively — the conditional-accept second-round revision with its summary-of-changes that maps every required change to a concrete edit and is re-read by the same primary, secondary, and external reviewers under the IEEE TVCG process.

Use when preparing an accepted IEEE VIS paper for its IEEE TVCG camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the VGTC/TVCG template and journal metadata (DOI, ORCID, IEEE keywords/index terms), integrating the second-round required changes without scope creep, permanentizing open-materials links, the Open Practices disclosure form, and the Graphics Replicability Stamp handoff.

Use when designing or auditing IEEE VIS evaluations, covering how to match evidence to the contribution type (perceptual study, controlled user study, algorithm benchmark, design-study validation, qualitative work), controlled experiment design with power and effect sizes, CVD-safe and perceptually grounded encoding choices, task taxonomies, and provenance so a TVCG reviewer trusts the result.

Use when positioning an IEEE VIS submission against the visualization literature across TVCG, the six VIS areas, EuroVis/CGF, PacificVis, and adjacent HCI/graphics venues, writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-blind when opted in, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap for a TVCG journal article.

Use when strengthening IEEE VIS reproducibility and open-practices evidence, covering the open-materials statement, anonymized-but-runnable code and stimuli, preregistration of perceptual and user studies, provenance for datasets and rendering pipelines, claim-to-figure mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between what the TVCG paper says and what the supplemental archive contains.

Use when reasoning about how an IEEE VIS full-paper submission is evaluated, covering the two-phase review that mirrors IEEE TVCG, the primary/secondary/external (and 2026 student) reviewer roles, the six-area routing through Area Paper Chairs, the conditional-accept second round, and how VIS's journal-integrated process differs from a single accept/reject conference and from CHI/CVPR.

Use when auditing an IEEE VIS full-paper submission for PCS readiness, covering the abstract-then-paper two-deadline structure under the VGTC society, the IEEE VGTC/TVCG 9+2 page budget, author-optional double-blind anonymization, the supplemental-material one-week window, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff for a paper that will publish in IEEE TVCG.

Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE VIS paper body versus its supplemental materials, covering the VGTC/TVCG 9+2 page budget, the supplemental video that VIS reviewers routinely watch, the one-week supplemental deadline extension, double-blind supplemental anonymization, and how to split a visualization paper between the reviewed pages and the archive.

Use when deciding whether a project belongs at IEEE VIS or should be routed to EuroVis, PacificVis, CHI, a graphics venue, or the IEEE TVCG journal track, and when choosing among the six VIS areas (Theoretical & Empirical, Applications, Systems & Rendering, Representations & Interaction, Data Transformations, Analytics & Decisions) by contribution type and evidence maturity.

Use when planning an IEEE VIS project timeline from area fit through the abstract and full-paper deadlines, the two-phase review, the conditional-accept second round, the IEEE TVCG camera-ready, the Graphics Replicability Stamp, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a visualization paper and honest handling of the annual cycle and the second-round revision window.

Use when revising an IEEE VIS paper for a task-grounded visualization contribution on the first page, a design rationale that ties each visual encoding and interaction to a task, evaluation matched to the contribution type, honest limitations, and disciplined use of the VGTC/TVCG 9+2 page budget for a paper that will be read as an IEEE TVCG journal article.

Use when preparing a PVLDB artifact for the pVLDB Reproducibility Evaluation or the ACM availability badge, covering the mandatory participation rule for EA&B papers, the four artifact surfaces evaluators rebuild, packaging for a rerun by strangers, and positioning for the Best Reproducible Paper Award at VLDB.

Use when a PVLDB paper receives a revision verdict and the response package must be built, covering the one-shot revision rule, the three-month window, reading the reviewers' required-changes list, planning new experiments against the clock, and writing the change document that VLDB reviewers re-evaluate against.

Use when producing the final PVLDB version of an accepted VLDB paper, covering the volume-specific template, PDF/A compliance and font embedding, figure legibility floors, the availability paragraph and artifact URL, proceedings file naming and copyright steps, and planning presentation at the matching VLDB conference.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a VLDB paper, covering workload and dataset realism at scale, competitor tuning fairness, scalability curves versus single points, tail-latency and throughput reporting, ablations that isolate the mechanism, and the loss-case disclosure PVLDB reviewers look for first.

Use when positioning a PVLDB submission against prior literature, covering the deep database canon back to the 1980s VLDB proceedings, the SIGMOD/ICDE/CIDR neighborhood, concurrent work under rolling monthly deadlines, industrial and open-source systems as citable prior art, and overlap declarations for extended versions.

Use when engineering reproducibility into a VLDB paper before submission, covering hardware and configuration disclosure, dataset and workload provenance, run-to-run variance in systems measurements, competitor-version pinning, figure-to-raw-data traceability, and the disclosure floor PVLDB reviewers apply to performance claims.

Use when reasoning about how PVLDB reviewing actually works, covering the rolling monthly pipeline, the roughly six-week review turnaround, the accept/revise/reject outcome space, the one-shot revision's odds, single-blind dynamics, the volume review board, and how a VLDB decision differs from batch-deadline venues.

Use when auditing a PVLDB submission before a monthly deadline, covering the mandatory abstract on the 25th, the CMT window, the 1st-of-month 5:00 PM Pacific cutoff, category and page-budget choice, single-blind cover-page requirements, the per-month and per-year author caps, and desk-reject hazards specific to VLDB.

Use when deciding what lives outside a PVLDB paper's page budget, covering the rule that appendices count against the limit, the extended technical report on arXiv under single-blind review, proof and algorithm placement, artifact repositories as the extra-results home, and keeping the paper self-contained for VLDB reviewers.

Use when deciding whether a project belongs at VLDB and in which PVLDB category, applying the data-management-primitive test, choosing among Regular, EA&B, Scalable Data Science, and Vision papers, and routing against SIGMOD, ICDE, CIDR, EDBT, PODS, KDD, systems venues, and The VLDB Journal.

Use when planning a VLDB project on the PVLDB rolling calendar, covering month-picking strategy, the volume-to-conference mapping and acceptance cutoff, budgeting a possible three-month revision, coordinating author caps across a group, and backward planning from the 25th-abstract / 1st-paper rhythm.

Use when revising a PVLDB paper's prose, covering the page-one contract for systems readers, scoping performance claims to measured regimes, stating design trade-offs instead of hiding them, terminology and notation discipline across a 12-page budget, and the tone VLDB's builder-reviewers reward.

Use when packaging code, data, and models for a WACV paper, covering the anonymous review artifact versus the public post-acceptance release, reproducing constraint-based applications claims (latency, power, robustness) not just accuracy, dataset licensing and release, and keeping the artifact in sync across the two-round Revise-and-Resubmit lap.

Use when responding to WACV reviews, covering the optional one-page Round 1 rebuttal and, separately, the Revise-and-Resubmit change summary that carries a revised paper into the no-rebuttal Round 2, including how to triage three reviews for the area chair, what a rebuttal can and cannot claim, and keeping every response double-blind.

Use when preparing a WACV camera-ready after acceptance, covering de-anonymization, IEEE Xplore plus CVF open-access dual publication, IEEE copyright and PDF checks, the dataset and code release obligation, per-paper registration, and preparing the winter-conference talk or poster once a paper clears Round 1 or Round 2.

Use when designing or auditing WACV experiments, covering Applications-track systems evidence (latency, power, robustness under real constraints) versus Algorithms-track matched-baseline novelty, comparative assessment under the deployed condition, uncertainty over seeds and sessions, ablations, and evidence that survives the two-round review.

Use when writing or auditing a WACV related-work section, covering how to position an applications or algorithms contribution against fast-moving vision literature, sibling-venue (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV) and arXiv concurrency, application-domain literature, double-blind self-citation, and verifying that cited "WACV papers" are actually WACV papers.

Use when strengthening the reproducibility of a WACV paper, covering the recipe ledger for constraint-aware systems, benchmark and split hygiene, seed and session honesty, device and power reporting for applications claims, and keeping the reproduction package in sync with the paper across the two-round Revise-and-Resubmit lap.

Use when reasoning about how WACV decides a paper, covering the two-round model, the Round 1 Accept / Revise-and-Resubmit / Reject recommendations, the optional Round 1 rebuttal, the no-rebuttal Round 2, area-chair consolidation, double-blind confidentiality, and where author leverage actually exists across the two rounds.

Use when auditing a WACV submission before an OpenReview round deadline, covering the Round 1 vs Round 2 choice, the Applications vs Algorithms track field, the 8-page-including-figures limit, double-blind anonymity and OpenReview-profile requirements, the anonymized supplement, dual submission, and desk-reject triage.

Use when organizing WACV supplementary material, covering what belongs in the anonymized supplement versus the 8-page body, packaging qualitative videos and extra results without breaking double-blind, keeping the supplement consistent with the paper across the two-round revision, and honoring WACV's no-author-identifying-links rule.