Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when writing or auditing the related-work and positioning of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript, covering the EDA literature lanes (DAC/ICCAD/DATE/ASP-DAC/TCAD/TODAES), delta-first positioning against the strongest prior tool, honest benchmark-suite lineage, and third-person self-citation under double-blind review within the six-page budget.

Use when building the reproducibility story for an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript, covering pinned EDA benchmark suites and versions (ISPD, EPFL, ISCAS/ITC, TAU, CircuitNet), open-source flow provenance (OpenROAD, ABC, Yosys), PDK/library and tool-version disclosure, seed/variance reporting for stochastic and ML flows, and the anonymized-then-public repository path — absent a formal DAC artifact-badging track.

Use when reasoning about how an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript is evaluated, covering double-blind TPC review, the novelty-plus-QoR decision criteria, program-committee discussion, the accept/reject (no major-revision) outcome, the ~20-25% selectivity, and how DAC's industry-facing, single-shot process differs from the architecture venues' rebuttal-and-revision cycles.

Use when auditing an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research-Manuscript submission for Softconf readiness, covering the two-stage abstract-then-manuscript deadline, the 6+1-page ACM double-column page budget with its references-only last page, the double-blind anonymization sweep, TPC conflict-of-interest declaration, and desk-reject triage before the mid-to-late-November cutoff.

Use when deciding what belongs inside the six reviewed pages of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript versus in an external repository, given DAC's tight 6+1 budget, its references-only seventh page, the double-blind constraint on any linked material, and the absence of a formal reviewed-appendix or artifact-badging track.

Use when deciding whether an EDA or chip-design project belongs at the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) and, if so, in the double-blind archival Research Manuscript track versus the industry-facing Engineering Track — or whether it should route to a sibling EDA venue (ICCAD, DATE, ASP-DAC) or a computer-architecture venue (ISCA/MICRO/HPCA), decided by contribution shape, QoR evidence maturity, and the November calendar.

Use to plan a full ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research-Manuscript campaign backward from the mid-to-late-November manuscript deadline through the two-stage abstract-then-manuscript submission on Softconf, the winter review, the March notification, the April camera-ready and copyright for the ACM Digital Library, and the July conference in Long Beach — with the Engineering-Track and Late-Breaking-Results side calendars.

Use when drafting or tightening the prose of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript, covering the QoR-forward first-page arc, stating the design-automation contribution as a measured delta, fitting a complete argument into six double-column pages plus a references-only page, building column-width EDA figures, and third-person self-citation for double-blind review.

Use when analyzing and reporting results for a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript. The journal expects analyses that model developmental change correctly — growth-curve/multilevel/SEM, mediation/moderation, measurement invariance — with effect sizes and confidence intervals, JARS-compliant disclosure, and a clear confirmatory/exploratory split. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript against the developmental literature. Positioning here must establish a developmental gap (what is unknown about change, age, or mechanism) and the contribution, while distinguishing the venue from siblings such as Child Development and Developmental Science. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the literature review.

Use when meeting Developmental Psychology's (APA) open-science and transparency expectations under the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines — data and materials sharing with persistent identifiers, preregistration, sample-size justification, and JARS-consistent disclosure — with the ethical handling of data from minors and vulnerable populations. Prepares compliance; it does not waive requirements.

Use when writing the response to a Developmental Psychology (APA) revise-and-resubmit. Reviews here often demand measurement-invariance tests, attrition analyses, added robustness, fuller JARS disclosure, or stronger transparency. The response must address every point and strengthen the developmental claim while staying in the length tier and masked. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when you need to understand how Developmental Psychology (APA) evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review, editorial weighting of developmental significance, design rigor (age/cohort, invariance, attrition), JARS reporting, and TOP transparency. Use when stress-testing a paper before submission or interpreting a decision letter. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when designing studies for a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript so they can actually support a developmental-change claim. Covers age-appropriate experimental and longitudinal designs, age vs. cohort confounds, attrition, measurement invariance across ages, sample-size justification, and ethics with minors and vulnerable populations. Strengthens the design and pre-analysis plan; it does not write code.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Developmental Psychology (APA) via Editorial Manager — length-tier compliance, the abstract and Public Significance Statement, APA 7th + JARS reporting, masked-review anonymization, the data-availability statement, and preregistration/data DOIs. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript. The journal uses APA 7th-edition style and rewards exhibits that make developmental change visible — trajectory plots, age-on-the-x-axis figures, model-implied growth curves — with effect sizes and uncertainty. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when stating the developmental theory and age-graded hypotheses for a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript. The journal rewards hypotheses that are explicitly about change (age effects, within-person trajectories, mechanisms) and a clean confirmatory/exploratory split under JARS. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Developmental Psychology (APA) and which length tier to target. The journal publishes seminal empirical work that advances knowledge and theory about development across the life span; the core test is whether the contribution is about developmental change, not just a phenomenon measured in one age group. Frames the question; it does not collect data.

Use when starting or navigating any Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript and you are unsure which sub-skill applies. Use when choosing a manuscript length tier or returning with a decision letter. Routes by lifecycle stage and by the developmental design (cross-sectional, longitudinal/cohort, micro-genetic, experiment with minors); it dispatches, it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript to fit its house style — APA 7th edition, JARS-compliant reporting, the manuscript length tier (brief report to multi-study/longitudinal report), the abstract, and the required Public Significance Statement. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when packaging code, data, prompts, model outputs, and annotation materials for an EACL submission, first as an anonymized ACL Rolling Review supplement aligned with the Responsible NLP checklist, then as a public post-acceptance ACL Anthology release, with attention to licensing, dataset documentation, and reproduction instructions.

Use when drafting an EACL author response during the ACL Rolling Review rebuttal window, covering how to triage reviewer points, address the action editor who writes the meta-review, answer NLP objection patterns, run in-window experiments, flag deficient reviews, and decide respond-now versus revise-for-a-later-venue given EACL's single cycle.

Use when preparing an EACL or Findings-of-ACL-EACL camera-ready after commitment acceptance, covering the extra content page, de-anonymization, AI-assistance disclosure, satisfying the meta-review's required changes, ACL Anthology metadata and CC BY licensing, registration and presentation obligations, and the public artifact release.

Use when designing or auditing the empirical evidence for an EACL paper, covering tuned and LLM baselines, multilingual breadth matched to the claim, significance and variance floors, human-evaluation agreement, data-contamination controls, ablations, and error taxonomies, so that every stated result is measured rather than asserted.

Use when positioning an EACL paper against fast-moving NLP literature, covering ACL-Anthology-first citation, correct Findings attribution, handling concurrent preprints fairly, freshness sweeps across recent *ACL rounds and European venues like LREC-COLING, and framing related work as a contrastive argument rather than a list.

Use when running the Responsible NLP checklist as a claims audit for an EACL paper, covering hyperparameter and compute disclosure, verbatim prompt and decoding reporting, data-contamination stance, variance and significance reporting, multilingual coverage claims, and consistency between the checklist answers and what the paper actually contains.

Use when reasoning about the EACL review pipeline through ACL Rolling Review, covering reviewers and the action editor's meta-review, the commitment step where EACL decides main versus Findings versus reject, ethics escalation, confidentiality, and when to route a reviewed package to a sibling *ACL venue.

Use when auditing an EACL submission before its single ACL Rolling Review cycle deadline, covering ACL-template compliance, the 8-page long / 4-page short content caps, the mandatory Limitations section, the Responsible NLP checklist, anonymization, preprint and resubmission declarations, and the no-fallback-cycle timing trap.

Use when organizing an EACL paper's body, mandatory Limitations section, appendices, and anonymized supplementary archive so that no decision-critical content hides where ACL Rolling Review reviewers are not obliged to read, and so the content-page budget carries the whole argument on its own.

Use when deciding whether a project is EACL-shaped or better routed to ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, AACL, TACL, Computational Linguistics, LREC-COLING, COLM, or an ML venue, covering the long-versus-short choice, the accept-Findings calculus, and how EACL's single ARR cycle and irregular cadence affect the routing decision.

Use when planning an EACL project timeline through ACL Rolling Review, covering the single viable ARR cycle with no fallback, backward planning from the one deadline, the rebuttal window, the commitment decision to EACL, notification, and camera-ready through ACL Anthology publication, plus re-routing since the next chance is another conference.

Use when revising an EACL paper's prose for a task-first first page, a concrete page-one example, scoped LLM-era claims, quantified error analysis, an anonymity-safe voice, honest Limitations, and compression into the 8-page long or 4-page short content budget without pushing the argument into appendices.

Use when planning the reproducibility/artifact story for an ECAI paper — noting that ECAI/FAIA has NO ACM/IEEE-style artifact-badging committee, so credibility is carried by the paper and its supplement and judged by the same reviewers, and adapting an ML-style reproducibility package (or a complete proof appendix for theory work) to that reality.

Use when writing the ECAI author response (rebuttal) — the single, short, double-blind reply during the response window (IJCAI-ECAI 2026: 7-10 April 2026) that must correct factual misreadings and supply asked-for evidence within a strict length limit, knowing there is no second round and the area chair decides.

Use when preparing the ECAI camera-ready — de-anonymizing, fitting the final version into the page budget, and meeting the publisher's production requirements, which differ by regime: IOS Press FAIA (ecai.cls, open-access book volume, copyright/consent-to-publish forms) for a standalone ECAI, versus IJCAI's own open-access proceedings (ijcai.sty) for the joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026.

Use when designing or auditing the evidence in an ECAI paper — choosing proof versus experiment by claim shape across ECAI's breadth (theory/KR, planning/search, ML, multi-agent, applied), fair baselines, seeds and spread, honest ablations, and provenance, all supporting a claim inside a 7-page body.

Use when writing the ECAI related-work section — covering the relevant general-AI lanes (symbolic, learning, multi-agent, application) for a broad reviewer pool, writing delta-first positioning, keeping self-citations double-blind, and doing it within a tight reference budget (1 page standalone / 2 pages in IJCAI-ECAI 2026).

Use when building the reproducibility story for an ECAI paper — a complete proof appendix for theory/KR work, a seeded and cached package for empirical/ML work, provenance pinning for datasets and models, and an anonymized supplement that satisfies double-blind review inside ECAI's tight 7-page body with no separate artifact track.

Use when reasoning about how an ECAI submission is evaluated — double-blind review, the summary-reject first phase, area chairs / senior PC, the single author-response (rebuttal) window, an accept/reject decision (no journal-style major-revision round), and how ECAI's process and its joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026 form differ from AAAI, IJCAI standalone, and AAMAS.

Use when auditing an ECAI submission for readiness — the abstract-then-full-paper two-deadline flow, the tight 7-page body budget, double-blind anonymity, the correct template/publisher regime (ecai.cls/FAIA for a standalone ECAI vs ijcai.sty/IJCAI proceedings for the joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026), the per-author submission cap, the ethics statement, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.

Use when deciding what goes in the ECAI 7-page body versus the anonymized supplement — splitting content by decision-criticality so nothing a reviewer needs to judge the paper lives outside the tight body, given there is no unlimited in-paper appendix and no separate artifact track.

Use before writing to decide whether a project belongs at ECAI versus IJCAI, AAAI, AAMAS, KR, or a pure-ML venue, and whether it should go to the ECAI main track or the co-located PAIS applications track — using contribution shape, the model-swap test, the European/general-AI fit, and the calendar (including the joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026 cycle).

Use to plan an ECAI campaign end to end — run the single-round year backward from the paper deadline through the abstract/registration step, summary-reject phase, rebuttal window, notification, and the open-access camera-ready, adapting to whether the edition is a standalone ECAI (FAIA/PAIS) or the joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026.

Use when writing or tightening an ECAI paper body — leading with a general-AI contribution on the first page, matching evidence to claim (a theorem and construction, or a fair empirical comparison), and doing it inside a 7-page body where every paragraph must earn its space.

Use when packaging code, models, and data around an ECCV paper — the anonymous review-time archive under the trailing supplement deadline, the do-not-cite-your-own-repo rule, and the June-to-September post-acceptance runway for a public release aligned with the ECVA and Springer copies of the paper.

Use when drafting an ECCV rebuttal — the optional one-page, two-column PDF answering three-plus reviews inside a nine-day window (reviews May 2, rebuttal due May 11 in 2026), with references counted inside the page, no venue-forbidden extras, and arguments sized for the area-chair discussion that follows.

Use when preparing an accepted ECCV paper for Springer LNCS publication — the enlarged final page budget, Springer author kit and licensing, the June 30 AoE camera-ready cutoff in 2026, registration as a publication condition, ECVA open-access mirroring about four weeks before the conference, and arXiv synchronization.

Use when designing or auditing the experimental program of an ECCV paper — benchmark selection that survives a September conference, matched-substrate baseline fairness in the foundation-model era, ablations that isolate the claimed mechanism, qualitative failure evidence, and run sequencing toward a March freeze.

Use when positioning an ECCV submission in the literature — covering the two intervening CVPR/ICCV cycles since the last ECCV, March-deadline concurrent-work conventions, the no-self-repo citation rule, Springer-vs-CVF venue attribution hygiene, and turning a numbered LNCS bibliography into an argument.

Use when hardening the reproducibility story of an ECCV paper — training recipes and schedules readers can re-run, dataset versioning and split provenance, pinned foundation-model dependencies, compute disclosure, and seed/variance honesty for benchmark deltas, sized for the 14-page LNCS body plus supplement.