Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when interpreting the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) review process and a decision letter, and planning the revision strategy. Explains the process and triages the decision; the actual response letter is drafted in smj-rebuttal.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript via ScholarOne — format, anonymization, files, and cover letter. Checks readiness; it does not write the paper or the rebuttal.

Use when building or cleaning up the tables and figures of a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript. Makes exhibits self-contained and persuasive; it does not run the analysis or write prose.

Use when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-run the interaction claims.

Use when drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short response window.

Use when preparing an accepted AAMAS paper for the IFAAMAS open-access camera-ready, covering author de-anonymization, proceedings metadata, two-column reflow of game figures and learning curves, resolving rebuttal-stage promises, registration, in-person presentation, and the public code and environment release for a multiagent paper.

Use when designing or auditing AAMAS experiments - self-play and population-based training, opponent selection, equilibrium and regret metrics, game-theoretic simulations, ablations, seeds, hyperparameters, compute, and claim-to-evidence fit - with emphasis on experiments that probe the interaction rather than chase a single-agent leaderboard.

Use when positioning an AAMAS submission against multiagent, game-theory, and reinforcement-learning literature spread across AAMAS, AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and JAAMAS, including arXiv and workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, and the cross-community citation coverage AAMAS reviewers expect.

Use when strengthening AAMAS reproducibility evidence for interaction claims, including proofs and game definitions, opponent and population sets, self-play protocols, random seeds, compute, uncertainty on strategic outcomes, baselines, and consistency between what the paper claims about agents and what the artifact can actually show.

Use when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weigh the interaction contribution.

Use when auditing an AAMAS main-track submission for OpenReview readiness, the 8-page-plus-references limit, the full-paper versus 2-page extended-abstract choice, double-blind anonymity, the supplementary zip cap, track fit across the AAAI/JAAMAS/Blue Sky tracks, dual-submission rules, and desk-reject triggers before upload.

Use when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiments paper across the 8-page body and the supplement.

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAMAS fit, comparing AAMAS with AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and the JAAMAS journal, identifying whether the agents are truly the research object, naming the interaction primitive (solution concept, mechanism, coordination, negotiation), and sharpening the multiagent framing before writing begins.

Use when planning an AAMAS project timeline from venue fit through abstract, full-paper or extended-abstract upload, supplementary material, the double-blind rebuttal, decision, IFAAMAS camera-ready, registration, and presentation, with track-specific deadlines and backward-planning offsets for a game-theory-plus-experiments paper.

Use when revising an AAMAS paper so the interaction contribution leads the first page, the solution concept or incentive property is named, the game and agents are legible, claims are paired with proofs or multiagent experiments, the argument fits eight two-column pages plus references, and the wording stays double-blind.

Use when packaging code, datasets, prompts, model outputs, or annotation materials for an ACL submission under ACL Rolling Review, covering anonymized supplement archives, scientific-artifact items of the Responsible NLP checklist, licensing and intended-use documentation, data statements, and post-acceptance public release.

Use when drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and deciding between responding now versus revising for a later ARR cycle.

Use when preparing an accepted ACL main-conference or Findings paper for camera-ready, covering the extra content page, de-anonymization and acknowledgements, AI-assistance disclosure, keeping the Limitations section, ACL Anthology metadata and CC BY 4.0 publication, meta-review-driven edits, and presentation-mode logistics.

Use when designing or auditing experiments for an ACL paper, covering tuned LLM baselines, multi-dataset and multilingual evaluation, statistical significance and variance, human evaluation with agreement reporting, contamination and prompt-sensitivity controls, ablations, and error-analysis expectations in NLP reviewing.

Use when positioning an ACL submission against the NLP literature, covering ACL Anthology citation practice, arXiv-versus-published version citation, concurrent LLM-era preprints, prior-cycle ARR resubmission overlap, anonymity-preserving self-citation, and the fast-moving baseline problem in computational linguistics.

Use when strengthening reproducibility evidence for an ACL paper reviewed through ACL Rolling Review, covering the Responsible NLP checklist end to end, hyperparameter and compute reporting, prompt and decoding disclosure for LLM experiments, data contamination auditing, variance across runs, and checklist-to-paper consistency.

Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.

Use when auditing an ACL submission before an ACL Rolling Review cycle deadline, covering long/short paper page budgets, the mandatory Limitations section, Responsible NLP checklist, anonymized PDFs and supplements, preprint declarations, dual-submission rules, resubmission linking, and ARR desk-reject triggers on OpenReview.

Use when organizing appendices and supplementary material for an ACL paper under ACL Rolling Review, covering the mandatory Limitations and optional ethics sections, appendices after references, anonymized software and data archives, the no-cloud-links rule, and deciding what must stay in the 8-page or 4-page body.

Use when deciding whether a project fits ACL versus EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, TACL, Computational Linguistics, COLM, or an ML venue, covering contribution typing for NLP work, long-versus-short paper choice, the annual theme track, Findings-tier expectations, and sharpening the computational-linguistics framing before writing starts.

Use when planning an ACL project calendar across ACL Rolling Review cycles, covering cycle selection against conference commitment windows, backward planning from an ARR deadline, the review-response-meta-review timeline, commitment decisions, resubmission loops to later cycles, and camera-ready through ACL Anthology publication.

Use when revising an ACL paper for computational-linguistics house style, covering task-first framing, linguistic examples tied to quantitative error analysis, scoping language claims to tested languages, LLM-era claim discipline, anonymous self-reference, Limitations prose, and compressing into the 8-page or 4-page ACL format.

Use when packaging ACM CCS artifacts for the artifact-evaluation committee and the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, Artifacts Evaluated Reusable, and Results Reproduced — covering what security evaluators inspect, how to make attacks and defenses turnkey, and how to justify withheld artifacts.

Use when drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.

Use when preparing an accepted ACM CCS paper for the ACM Digital Library proceedings, covering de-anonymization, the ACM sigconf final format, ACM rights and eRights forms, badge placement from artifact evaluation, incorporation of shepherd and minor-revision requirements, disclosure-timing coordination, registration, and in-person presentation.

Use when designing or auditing ACM CCS experiments, attack demonstrations, adaptive-attack defense evaluations, security measurements, baselines, overhead and cost reporting, ablations, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on evidence that survives an adversarial program committee rather than leaderboard wins.

Use when positioning an ACM CCS submission against the security big-four and specialist literature, including arXiv preprints, prior CCS/S&P/USENIX/NDSS papers, concurrent disclosures, CVE and advisory records, and the attack-and-defense lineage that a SIGSAC program committee expects to see credited.

Use when strengthening ACM CCS reproducibility evidence, including the artifact-availability posture, threat-model-to-evidence mapping, attack reproduction steps, defense overhead measurement, measurement-dataset provenance, environment and version pinning, and honest justification when artifacts cannot be shared.

Use when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.

Use when auditing an ACM CCS submission for HotCRP readiness, dual-cycle abstract registration and full-paper deadlines, the 12-page ACM sigconf body, anonymization, the ethics considerations appendix, artifact-availability posture, dual-submission policy, per-cycle submission caps, desk-reject triggers, and final-week sequencing.

Use when preparing ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security paper.

Use when deciding whether a security project fits ACM CCS versus IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, NDSS, PETS, or a crypto/theory venue, identifying the security contribution type, and sharpening the threat model and attacker capability before writing begins.

Use when planning an ACM CCS project timeline across the two HotCRP review cycles, from venue fit through abstract registration, full-paper upload, rebuttal, notification, revision, artifact evaluation, ACM camera-ready, and in-person presentation, with backward-planning offsets and the security big-four deadline-hopping calendar.

Use when revising an ACM CCS paper for a precise threat model, calibrated attack/defense claims, 12-page ACM sigconf compression, double-blind wording, adaptive-evaluation honesty, and the security house style that survives an adversarial SIGSAC program committee.

Use when packaging code, models, datasets, or media as ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) artifacts — building the anonymous review package versus the public release, and choosing between the Open Source Software Competition, the Dataset track, the Reproducibility track, and main-track supplementary evidence, each with its own blinding and expectations.

Use when drafting the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) rebuttal — turning multiple anonymous reviews into one focused, anonymous response that fixes factual errors first, adds small confirmatory cross-modal results, concedes calibratedly, and stays inside policy (anonymous, no new external links), written for the area chair who decides.

Use when preparing the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) camera-ready version of record — de-anonymizing safely, completing the ACM rights form and CCS concepts, meeting ACM sigconf requirements, releasing code/data/media artifacts and any earned reproducibility badge, registering, and planning the oral/poster presentation in Rio.

Use when designing or auditing the experiments of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — matched baselines per modality, ablations that isolate the cross-modal fusion, user studies or QoE measurement where the claim is subjective, dataset and media licensing, and honest compute reporting, so evidence supports a multimedia claim.

Use when building or auditing the related-work section of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — covering the multimedia literature spread across vision, audio/speech, language, HCI/QoE, and systems, handling arXiv-speed concurrency, keeping citations double-blind, and verifying that cited "ACM MM papers" are ACM MM and not ICMR, MMSys, CVPR, or TOMM.

Use when strengthening the reproducibility of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper or preparing for the ACM MM Reproducibility track and ACM artifact badging — capturing environments, media/data access, seeds, and multimodal pipelines so an independent reviewer can rebuild results and reach Artifacts Evaluated or Results Reproduced badges.

Use when reasoning about the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) review pipeline — thematic-area routing to reviewers and area chairs, the OpenReview double-blind process and its single-blind track exceptions, the optional anonymous rebuttal, the meta-review and decision, and the oral/poster and award tiers, and where an author actually has leverage.

Use when auditing an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) submission for OpenReview readiness — thematic-area choice, the 6-8 page ACM sigconf budget, references-only overflow, double-blind anonymity versus the single-blind Reproducibility/Open-Source/Dataset tracks, supplementary media, dual submission, desk-reject triggers, and last-week sequencing.

Use when organizing the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) supplementary material due after the paper deadline — deciding what belongs in the 6-8 page body versus the supplement, packaging video/audio/interactive demos that render on a reviewer's machine, keeping all assets anonymous for double-blind tracks, and pointing to code and data.

Use when deciding whether a project is a genuine ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) contribution rather than single-modality work, choosing a thematic area, and routing between ACM MM, CVPR/ICCV, ACL/EMNLP, ICMR, MMSys, NeurIPS/ICLR, and the ACM TOMM journal by finding the cross-modal or media-systems core of the contribution.

Use when planning the end-to-end ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) campaign calendar — from thematic-area scoping and track choice, through the April OpenReview abstract/paper/supplement chain, the June anonymous rebuttal, the July decision, the August camera-ready, and the November presentation in Rio, with the right skill invoked at each stage.