Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when deciding whether a project belongs at WACV or should route elsewhere, covering WACV's applications-first identity within the CVF's CVPR/ICCV/ECCV/WACV calendar, the Applications-vs-Algorithms track choice, whether the two-round winter timing fits your schedule, and routing to CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, 3DV, or a journal.

Use when planning a WACV campaign calendar across the two-round model, from track and round choice through the Round 1 submission, rebuttal, and Accept/Revise-and-Resubmit/Reject decision, into the Round 2 revision and decision, camera-ready, and the winter conference — with the branch points that a single-deadline plan misses.

Use when revising a WACV paper's prose and first page, covering how to write for the chosen Applications or Algorithms track, leading with the real-world constraint or the method, self-contained figure captions inside the 8-page-including-figures budget, scoped claims, and a first page that pre-empts the Revise-and-Resubmit question.

Use when packaging code, data, and models as evidence for a WSDM paper - anonymous repositories cited in the PDF, the proprietary-log dilemma of web-scale research, public-benchmark substitution tiers, WSDM Cup datasets, and what credible artifact release looks like at a venue without a formal badge process.

Use when planning author-side communication for WSDM, a venue that historically runs no rebuttal - covers preemptive objection engineering inside the submitted PDF, the narrow legitimate channels to chairs after submission, reading reviews you cannot answer, and converting a rejection into a stronger next-cycle or sibling-venue submission.

Use when preparing a WSDM camera-ready after acceptance - de-anonymization order, ACM rights and TAPS production into the Digital Library proceedings, CCS concepts and keywords, page-allowance verification, artifact link restoration, and registration/presentation duties at a single-track winter conference.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a WSDM paper - offline ranking and recommendation metrics with bias controls, temporal-split protocols for interaction logs, baseline selection from recent WSDM/SIGIR/KDD editions, ablations that isolate the mechanism, efficiency reporting, and online-evidence framing.

Use when positioning a paper against prior literature for WSDM - locating the work inside WSDM's own research lineages (click models, unbiased LTR, sequential recommendation, community detection), contrasting against SIGIR/KDD/WWW/CIKM/RecSys neighbors, venue-misattribution traps, and compressing the section for the tight page budget.

Use when hardening the reproducibility of a WSDM paper built on logs, graphs, or user-interaction data - provenance of behavioral datasets, temporal split discipline, click-bias assumptions, seed and variance reporting, privacy-preserving release, and honesty tiers for results no outsider can rerun.

Use when reasoning about how WSDM reviews and decides papers - the hybrid single/double-blind architecture with Associate-Chair metadata visibility, at-least-three PC reviews plus senior PC assessment, the absence of a rebuttal phase, the August-to-October window, and what ~17% selectivity at a single-track venue implies.

Use when auditing a WSDM submission before the August deadlines - EasyChair setup, the abstract-then-paper week, the appendix-inclusive page budget, the required ethical-considerations section, anonymization that survives Associate-Chair metadata visibility, and desk-reject exposure at a no-rebuttal venue.

Use when deciding what goes where in a WSDM submission whose appendices count inside the page cap - triage between the 9-page body, the uncounted references and ethics section, and the cited external repository; compression tactics for proofs, prompts, and hyperparameter tables under WSDM's historically tight budget.

Use when deciding whether a project belongs at WSDM or a neighbor - tests for the web/social-data core and the practical-yet-principled bar, scope coverage from web search and recommendation to social networks and responsible web AI, routing against SIGIR, KDD, WWW, CIKM, RecSys, and ICWSM, and long-versus-short-track fit.

Use when planning the calendar for a WSDM submission - the single annual cycle from August abstract and paper deadlines through October notification to the February conference, backward milestone planning, the September short-paper fallback, alternate entrances (demos, WSDM Cup, doctoral consortium), and coordination with sibling-venue deadlines.

Use when drafting or revising prose for a WSDM paper - the practical-yet-principled register, user-and-platform-grounded framing, self-containment writing for a no-rebuttal review, ethical-considerations craft, limitation sentences that protect borderline papers, and compression into the appendix-inclusive page cap.

Use when the causal identification argument is the bottleneck for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) manuscript — RCT/program evaluation, DiD/event study around a reform, regression discontinuity, or IV in a developing-country setting. Stress-tests the data-to-estimate mapping AND the external-validity/policy-interpretation step to the WBER bar; it does not write prose or build the package.

Use when staking a contribution against the development-economics frontier for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) manuscript, and ruling out its sibling journals (JDE, World Development, Economic Development and Cultural Change, the Research Observer). Sharpens the gap and the boundary claims; it does not run analysis or write the intro.

Use when a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) and you need the response-letter strategy — triaging editor vs. referee asks, sequencing new analysis, and writing point-by-point replies for the identification and policy referee archetypes. Plans the revision; it does not run the new analysis.

Use when anticipating referee and editor objections before submitting to The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) — pre-empting the predictable development-economics pushbacks (external validity, identification, data quality, policy relevance) and writing the cover letter. Plans defenses; it does not run new analysis.

Use when assembling the data and code replication package for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) manuscript to meet WBER's condition-of-publication data/code release, the data availability statement with a DOI repository link, and the realities of restricted developing-country data. Builds the deposit and README; it does not run the analysis or write the paper.

Use when results for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) manuscript may be sensitive to specification, sample, measurement, or inference choices — and you need a threat-organized robustness plan rather than an appendix dump. Organizes checks by identifying threat and by data-quality risks specific to developing-country data; it does not run the estimation.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) via the ScholarOne ManuscriptCentral portal — the 40-page total cap, single-anonymized title page, abstract/JEL, data availability statement with DOI, and house format. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building the exhibits for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) manuscript so they read cleanly for a mixed economist + policymaker audience, fit the 40-page cap, and carry the policy magnitude. Designs and audits tables/figures; it does not run the analysis or write the prose.

Use when a development model is needed to interpret an empirical result or to run a policy counterfactual for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) manuscript, or when deciding whether a formal model is needed at all. Disciplines the model-to-data link and the counterfactual; it does not run estimation or write prose.

Use when deciding whether a development-economics question fits The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) — and how to frame it so both halves of the WBER bar (credible empirics AND policy relevance) are visible. Locks the question and outlet; it does not run the analysis or write the prose.

Use when deciding which wber-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when the prose for a The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) manuscript buries the development-policy contribution — abstract, introduction, and the bridge from estimate to policy lesson. Sharpens the writing for a mixed economist + policymaker audience; it does not run analysis or build exhibits.

Use when the inference logic is the bottleneck for a World Development (WD) manuscript — credible causal design for quantitative work, or a transparent inferential logic for qualitative and mixed-methods work. Stress-tests the strategy to WD's pluralist bar before exhibits are finalized.

Use when staking a World Development (WD) manuscript's contribution across the multidisciplinary development literature. Sharpens the gap and the claim; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when responding to a World Development (WD) decision letter — major/minor revision or reject-and-resubmit — under double-anonymized, multidisciplinary review. Builds the response-letter strategy; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when anticipating the objections a World Development (WD) manuscript will draw under double-anonymized, multidisciplinary review. Pre-empts referee pushback before submission; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when preparing the data/code or qualitative-transparency materials for a World Development (WD) manuscript under Elsevier's research-data policy and double-anonymized review. Assembles the package; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when results may be sensitive — to specification, sample, measurement, or inference for quantitative work, or to interpretation and triangulation for qualitative work — in a World Development (WD) manuscript. Organizes checks by threat; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for World Development (WD) via Elsevier Editorial Manager — double-anonymized formatting, abstract/keyword limits, declarations, data statement, and house style. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when exhibits in a World Development (WD) manuscript are dense, asterisk-laden, or fail a multidisciplinary reader — including maps and qualitative displays. Makes every exhibit answer a development question; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when the conceptual or analytical framework is the bottleneck for a World Development (WD) manuscript — development theory that organizes the evidence, not necessarily a formal model. Makes the framework do real analytical work; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when deciding whether a development question fits World Development (WD) and which sibling journal it really belongs to. Tests scope, relevance, and outlet fit; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when deciding which worlddev-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a World Development (WD) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when the prose, intro, or abstract of a World Development (WD) manuscript fails to reach a multidisciplinary, policy-oriented, global readership. Tunes voice and structure to the WD reader; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when organizing the Parts of a The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) article into a doctrine→theory→normative arc. It sequences the argument and pressure-tests counterarguments; it does not polish prose (use ylj-writing-style) or format citations (use ylj-sources-and-bluebook).

Use when running the final footnote-apparatus audit of a The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) piece — verifying every cite exists, is pinpointed, is correct Bluebook form, and actually supports its sentence, in preparation for (or during) the student source-pull. It verifies; it does not construct new cites (ylj-sources-and-bluebook).

Use when planning where and when to submit a law-review piece and how to handle an expedite, with The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) as a target. It covers multi-submission timing, season strategy, and YLJ's specific expedite rules; it does not run the final upload preflight (ylj-submission).

Use when verifying that a The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) claim is genuinely novel and not preempted by prior scholarship. It runs the systematic SSRN/Westlaw/HeinOnline search and writes the "what's new" paragraph; it does not draft the thesis (use ylj-thesis-and-contribution).

Use when working through The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) post-acceptance editing cycle and answering author queries, or when preparing a shorter YLJ Forum piece. It covers the intensive student edit + the online companion path; it does not run the final cite verification (ylj-footnotes-and-cite-check).

Use when building and formatting the citation apparatus for a The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) piece — pinpoint cites, Bluebook form, and source support for every assertion. It governs cite construction; the final editorial cite-check and source-pull is ylj-footnotes-and-cite-check.

Use when working with The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) student editors during evaluation and acceptance — the Articles & Essays Committee read, the Notes Development process for student authors, and the source-pull. It explains how the student-edited model works; it does not run the intensive line-edit cycle (ylj-revision-and-editing).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) via its own online author portal — track selection, anonymization, word/length caps, Bluebook readiness, and required materials. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when sharpening the central legal-scholarly claim and contribution for a The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) piece. It forces a falsifiable, generalist thesis and names the contribution type; it does not search prior literature (use ylj-preemption-check) or build the argument (use ylj-argument-structure).

Use when deciding whether a legal-scholarship idea is a fit for The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) and which track it belongs in. It tests generalist significance, timeliness, and novelty potential; it does not draft the thesis or run the formal preemption search.

Use as the entry point for any The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) piece. Routes to the right YLJ sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and which track (Article, Essay, Feature, student Note/Comment, or Forum) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content.