Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when explaining or planning around the ICLR review process, including OpenReview public review, AC/SAC roles, reviewer questions, discussion, revisions, final recommendations, and ethics escalation.

Use when auditing an ICLR main-conference submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reciprocal reviewing, LLM-use disclosure, dual-submission policy, supplementary material, and desk-reject risk.

Use when organizing ICLR appendices, supplementary files, anonymous code/data, revised PDFs, private links, and discussion-period updates under OpenReview rules.

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ICLR submission, should be reframed for ICLR, or should be routed to NeurIPS, ICML, AAAI, AISTATS, ACL, CVPR, KDD, or another venue.

Use when planning an ICLR project timeline from topic selection through OpenReview submission, discussion, revision, decision, camera-ready, poster, video, and public artifact release.

Use when revising an ICLR manuscript for learning-representation framing, OpenReview readability, contribution clarity, limitations, ethics, and reviewer navigation.

Use when packaging ICML code, data, anonymous repositories, supplementary code/data ZIPs, reproducibility artifacts, and public release material under ICML rules.

Use when drafting ICML rebuttals and reviewer-author discussion replies under OpenReview, double-blind constraints, one-round discussion expectations, and no revised-paper upload.

Use when preparing accepted ICML papers for camera-ready upload, PMLR agreement, public OpenReview record, lay summary, conflict disclosure, registration/presentation choices, format checker, and post-conference revision.

Use when stress-testing ICML experimental evidence, including baselines, ablations, seed variance, compute, data leakage, reproducibility, negative results, and soundness/originality/significance fit.

Use when positioning an ICML submission against close ML literature, concurrent ICML submissions, recent public papers, workshop papers, ICLR/AISTATS/NeurIPS neighbors, and prior work under double-blind constraints.

Use when strengthening ICML reproducibility evidence, including code/data availability, random seeds, compute disclosure, appendix evidence, impact-statement support, and reviewer-facing reproducibility claims.

Use when explaining or diagnosing the ICML review process, including OpenReview, reciprocal reviewing, reviewer/AC behavior, review dimensions, author response, one-round discussion, LLM-review policy, ethics flags, and public review records.

Use when auditing an ICML main-track submission for OpenReview, LaTeX formatting, 8-page body, anonymity, supplementary material, impact statement, dual submission, concurrent ICML submissions, reciprocal reviewing, and LLM/prompt-injection policy compliance.

Use when deciding what ICML material belongs in the main 8-page body, same-PDF appendices, supplementary manuscript, code/data supplement, anonymous concurrent-submission PDF, or public camera-ready artifact.

Use when deciding whether a manuscript fits ICML, choosing main-track versus position paper or another venue, or rerouting an ML paper based on contribution type, evidence, and community fit.

Use when planning an ICML manuscript workflow from topic selection through drafting, submission, review, author response, camera-ready, PMLR publication, public artifacts, and rerouting.

Use when rewriting a machine-learning paper for ICML-style claims, 8-page clarity, soundness/originality/significance framing, impact statement, lay-summary readiness, and reviewer-updateable rebuttal posture.

Use when packaging IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI code, data, proofs, models, and appendices as reproducibility evidence or supplementary material, especially when there is no separate artifact-evaluation badge but reviewers need convincing, anonymous, deadline-safe evidence.

Use when drafting IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI author responses under the official one-page template, concise-response guidance, no-new-results constraints, code-link restrictions, factual-error triage, pressing-question triage, and confidential unethical-review channel.

Use when preparing an accepted IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI paper for camera-ready submission, author de-anonymization, author-order checks, copyright and proceedings metadata, final formatting, source/package readiness, in-person presentation obligations, and artifact release timing.

Use when designing or auditing IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI experiments, baselines, ablations, statistical evidence, hyperparameter reporting, compute descriptions, dataset handling, ethics risks, and reproducibility evidence for AI papers.

Use when positioning an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI submission against archival AI literature, arXiv preprints, workshop papers, prior rejected versions, dual-submission rules, shortened prior versions, and resubmission-information requirements.

Use when strengthening IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI reproducibility evidence for theory, algorithms, datasets, and computational experiments under the official convincing/credible/irreproducible reviewer rubric and optional reproducibility-section guidance.

Use when explaining or planning around IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI two-phase review, summary rejection, PC/SPC/AC/SAC roles, author response visibility, reviewer confidentiality, conflict-of-interest policy, ethics checks, and decision dynamics.

Use when auditing an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI main-track submission for Chairing Tool readiness, abstract and author-information deadlines, page limits, double-blind anonymity, supplementary files, reproducibility, resubmission information, author limits, dual-submission policy, and LLM-use policy.

Use when preparing IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI supplementary material, technical appendices, ZIP files, proofs, derivations, data, source code, and resubmission files under deadline, format, size, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints.

Use when deciding whether an AI project is a strong IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI fit, comparing main track versus special tracks, Survey Track, AIJ/JAIR expedited-publication potential, or alternative AI venues such as NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AAAI, AISTATS, UAI, COLT, KDD, CVPR, ACL, or ICRA.

Use when planning an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI project timeline from venue fit through abstract registration, full-paper upload, author information, PPI payment, summary-reject risk, author response, notification, camera-ready, in-person presentation, and artifact release.

Use when revising an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI paper for broad AI significance, 7-page-body compression, self-contained exposition, double-blind wording, optional ethics discussion, reproducibility clarity, and policy-safe use of LLM editing.

Use when turning results into an explicit contribution to IS for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript and when drafting the mandatory ~500-word cover-letter contribution statement (required since June 1, 2023). Frames the contribution; it does not position the literature (isr-literature-positioning) or run the submission preflight (isr-submission).

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — identification and validity for empirical work, proof discipline and comparative statics for analytical work, and rigorous evaluation for design-science work, with overflow routed to the electronic companion. Runs and reports the analysis; it does not design the study (isr-methods) or frame the contribution (isr-contribution-framing).

Use when positioning an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript in the IS literature — naming the conversation(s) you join, bridging behavioral, economic, design-science, and organizational IS silos, and showing the intradisciplinary move that ISR prizes. Positions the work; it does not build the mechanism (isr-theory-development) or write the contribution statement (isr-contribution-framing).

Use when choosing and stress-testing the research design for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — matching the genre (behavioral empirical, analytical-economic modeling, design-science, or multimethod) to the question, and ensuring the design can actually support the IS contribution. Designs the study; it does not execute the estimation/derivation (isr-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (isr-contribution-framing).

Use when planning and drafting the response to an Information Systems Research (ISR) revise-and-resubmit — prioritizing the Senior Editor's binding concerns, addressing genre-specific reviewer asks (assumptions/proofs, identification/validity, evaluation), updating the contribution statement, and using the electronic companion. Drafts the revision and response; it runs after isr-review-process.

Use to understand how Information Systems Research (ISR) handles a submission — the EIC fit gate, the Senior-Editor-led process with an Associate Editor and reviewers, double-anonymized review, and how to read an ISR decision letter. Sets expectations and interprets letters; it does not draft the response (isr-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — INFORMS ScholarOne portal, double-anonymization, the 32/38-page cap and formatting, the mandatory ~500-word contribution statement, and the required editor/reviewer nominations in the cover letter. Checks readiness to submit; it does not handle the post-decision response (isr-rebuttal).

Use when designing the exhibits for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — correlation/measurement tables, estimation results, model/equilibrium figures, design-science evaluation tables, and the split between main text and the electronic companion under ISR's 32-page text / 38-page total cap. Finalizes exhibits; it does not run the analysis (isr-data-analysis) or polish prose (isr-writing-style).

Use when building or refining the mechanism for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — deriving behavioral hypotheses for empirical work or analytical propositions/equilibrium predictions for modeling work, always centered on the IT artifact and the sociotechnical interplay across levels of analysis. Builds the theory; it does not test it (isr-methods, isr-data-analysis).

Use when shaping or sanity-checking a research question for Information Systems Research (ISR) — testing sociotechnical, intradisciplinary fit, IT-artifact centrality, the level(s) of analysis, and whether the question belongs at ISR versus MISQ, JMIS, or Management Science. Locks the question and genre; it does not build the mechanism (isr-theory-development).

Use when deciding which isr-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills. Knows ISR's sociotechnical, intradisciplinary mission and its co-equal behavioral and analytical genres.

Use when polishing the prose, structure, abstract, and notation of an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — front-loading the IS contribution, writing for a sociotechnical and intradisciplinary readership, keeping the 300-word abstract and double-anonymized text, and following INFORMS author-date style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the contribution or identification/proof is still unsettled.

Use when executing and reporting the empirical analysis (or the formal-model results) for an International Organization (IO) manuscript so it survives expert double-blind IR review and IO's pre-publication verification. The IO editorial staff re-run quantitative analyses and check formal proofs before final acceptance, and IR data raise distinctive estimation problems (dyadic dependence, selection into treaties/alliances/conflict, gravity structure). Guides analysis and reporting; it does not...

Use when positioning an International Organization (IO) manuscript against the international-relations literature so it reads as a contribution to an IR debate. IO readers span rationalist, constructivist, institutionalist, IPE, and security traditions, so the paper must engage the IR conversation it speaks to and the closest prior IR work — while staying double-blind. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to an International Organization (IO) revise-and-resubmit. IO R&Rs come from expert IR referees whose anonymous reviews the editors return with a decision letter, and the editor adjudicates. The response must convert each reviewer on the IR theory and design without alienating the editor, keep the manuscript double-blind, and keep results and proofs re-runnable for IO's pre-final-acceptance verification. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of an International Organization (IO) manuscript on international-level questions — causal identification with dyadic/TSCS/network data, case selection and process tracing for international cases, survey/conjoint experiments on foreign-policy attitudes, or formal-empirical linkage. IO judges each IR tradition on its own terms and verifies results and proofs before final acceptance. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how International Organization (IO) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind peer review, expert IR referees, anonymous reviews returned to the author, the decision and revise-and-resubmit process, and IO's distinctive verification of quantitative results and formal proofs before final acceptance. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for International Organization (IO) via Editorial Manager — article-type selection, double-blind preparation (third-person self-citation), word caps, separate abstract/word-count/acknowledgments, short author-date footnotes, supplementary material (~20 pages), ORCID, and the Data Availability Statement. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an International Organization (IO) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, reproducible, and count toward the word budget correctly. IO word limits include tables, figures, and notes (but exclude the bibliography), and exhibits must survive IO's pre-publication result verification. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of an International Organization (IO) manuscript into a generalizable theory of international politics — whether rationalist/formal (bargaining, signaling, delegation, cooperation), constructivist/ideational, or empirical with explicit international mechanisms. IO rewards a portable IR theory over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.