Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when modeling how ECCV review actually works — the OpenReview pipeline from March registration to June decisions, the 2026 reviewer-duty enforcement that desk-rejects authors of late or LLM-written reviews, rebuttal-to-AC-discussion dynamics, and what the ECVA-run, Springer-published structure means for outcomes.

Use when auditing an ECCV submission for the two-step registration-then-paper deadline chain, the 14-page LNCS single-column limit, CET (not AoE) cutoffs, the trailing supplementary deadline, double-blind rules, the four-page dual-submission definition, the social-media embargo, and reviewer-duty exposure before upload.

Use when assembling ECCV supplementary material under its own deadline one week after the paper (March 12 in 2026) — deciding what belongs in the extra week's upload, video and qualitative-result packaging, anonymity scrubbing of archives, and keeping the 14-page LNCS body self-contained.

Use when deciding whether a computer-vision project should target ECCV — weighing the two-year even-year cadence against CVPR, ICCV, WACV, BMVC, ACCV, NeurIPS, and journal routes, testing whether the work matches ECCV's breadth from geometry to vision-language, and reading the Koenderink Prize lineage as a durability signal.

Use when running an ECCV campaign end to end — the even-year calendar from February registration to the September conference, the retargeting triangle to CVPR and ICCV seen from the ECCV seat, where the 2026 cycle stands today, and backward planning a 2028 submission from the March deadline.

Use when writing or revising an ECCV paper in the Springer LNCS single-column format — spending the 14-page budget (figures and tables included), LNCS-specific layout craft, first-page architecture for a mixed European panel, numbered-citation hygiene, and claims phrased to survive a one-page rebuttal.

Use when preparing an EDBT database-systems artifact and reproducibility package, covering what evaluators check first for systems papers, a turnkey run path, pinned workloads and environments, DOI-issuing archival for the open-access OpenProceedings record, and the higher stakes for Experiments & Analysis papers.

Use when drafting EDBT author responses across the two turns of a cycle — the short author-feedback reply on the initial reviews, and the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit change letter that maps every reviewer request to a concrete revision re-read by the original reviewers under the OpenProceedings process.

Use when preparing an accepted EDBT paper for its OpenProceedings camera-ready, covering the host/OpenProceedings LaTeX template, the CC-BY-NC-ND open-access license and copyright form, ISBN/volume metadata, integrating reviewer-required changes without scope creep, permanentizing artifact links, and the presentation obligation.

Use when designing or auditing EDBT empirical evaluations for database-systems work, covering real workloads and datasets, fair and tuned baselines, honest measurement across realistic scales, reproducible harnesses, and the higher bar of the Experiments & Analysis paper where the measurement itself is the contribution.

Use when positioning an EDBT submission against the data-management literature across SIGMOD, VLDB/PVLDB, ICDE, EDBT, the co-located ICDT, and the database journals (VLDBJ, TODS, TKDE), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, and handling the 12-month EDBT resubmission ban, preprints, and prior-version overlap.

Use when strengthening EDBT reproducibility for a database-systems paper, covering a runnable artifact, pinned environments and workloads, dataset and query-log provenance, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between the paper and the package for the open-access OpenProceedings record.

Use when reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit second read by the original reviewers, the cycle-to-conference roll, and how EDBT's rolling model differs from SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and the co-located ICDT.

Use when auditing an EDBT research-track submission for Microsoft CMT readiness, covering the cycle choice, the paper shape (Regular / Experiments-&-Analysis / Vision), the OpenProceedings/host LaTeX template and per-shape page budget, the 12-month resubmission ban, reproducibility items, and desk-reject triage before the cycle deadline.

Use when deciding what belongs in an EDBT paper body versus its artifact and appendices, covering the per-shape page budget with unlimited references, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, and how to split a database-systems paper between body and reproducible package.

Use when deciding whether a data-management project belongs at EDBT or should be routed to SIGMOD, VLDB/PVLDB, ICDE, the co-located ICDT theory venue, or a database journal, and when choosing the EDBT paper shape (Regular / Experiments-&-Analysis / Vision) and the nearest submission cycle.

Use when planning an EDBT project timeline across the multiple-cycle rolling model — choosing a submission cycle, backward-planning through the author-feedback phase and the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit window, and handling the cycle-to-conference roll — for a database-systems paper published open access on OpenProceedings.

Use when revising an EDBT paper for a data-management contribution on the first page, a reproducibly described mechanism, an evaluation that survives a database-systems reviewer, honest scope, and disciplined use of the per-shape page budget (Regular / Experiments-&-Analysis / Vision) in the OpenProceedings template.

Use when packaging the artifacts of an EMNLP paper — datasets, annotation guidelines, prompts, evaluation code, and model outputs — as anonymous review-time evidence or public post-acceptance releases, with licensing, data statements, and the inspection order NLP reviewers actually follow.

Use when drafting an EMNLP author response in the ACL Rolling Review discussion window — triaging replies by soundness versus excitement, deciding what evidence can be added mid-review, staying anonymous, and writing for the area chair's meta-review and the post-commitment Senior Area Chairs, not the reviewers alone.

Use when converting an accepted EMNLP paper — Main or Findings — into its ACL Anthology camera-ready form: de-anonymization, integrating response-phase commitments, Limitations and checklist-appendix handling, Anthology metadata hygiene, artifact link restoration, and Budapest presentation and registration logistics.

Use when designing or auditing the experimental program of an EMNLP paper — baseline fairness and tuning budgets, dataset and language coverage matched to claims, contamination audits for pretrained and API models, significance testing and seed variance, human evaluation protocols, prompt sensitivity, and the error analysis EMNLP reviewers expect.

Use when positioning an EMNLP submission inside NLP's fast-moving literature — covering ACL Anthology lineages and arXiv concurrency, citing Findings and workshop papers correctly, tracing dataset and benchmark ancestry, verifying every reference resolves under the hallucinated-citation policy, and keeping self-citation double-blind.

Use when hardening an EMNLP paper's reproducibility record — answering the Responsible NLP checklist truthfully under desk-reject enforcement, pinning model versions and API snapshot dates, logging decoding parameters and prompts, documenting data licensing and annotation, and reporting compute so another lab could rerun the study.

Use when explaining or strategizing around EMNLP's two-stage pipeline — ACL Rolling Review scoring with soundness, excitement, and overall recommendation, area-chair meta-reviews, the commitment step, and conference-side decisions by Senior Area Chairs into Main, Findings, or rejection — including resubmission dynamics and ethics flags.

Use when auditing an EMNLP submission before the ACL Rolling Review deadline, covering ACL-template compliance, the 8-page long / 4-page short caps, the mandatory Limitations section, the Responsible NLP checklist and its desk-reject enforcement, anonymization without an anonymity period, venue preference, and reciprocal-reviewing duties.

Use when dividing an EMNLP paper between content pages, uncounted Limitations and ethics sections, appendices, and ACL Rolling Review supplementary uploads — deciding what reviewers are owed in the body, what belongs in appendix prompts-and-tables territory, and what ships as anonymous code and data archives.

Use when deciding whether a project belongs at EMNLP, weighing its empirical-NLP identity against ACL, NAACL, EACL, AACL, CoNLL, LREC-COLING, TACL, and ML venues, matching the contribution to EMNLP's welcomed paper types including negative results and reproductions, and choosing between main conference, Findings, industry, and demo pipelines.

Use when planning an EMNLP project calendar end to end — choosing the ACL Rolling Review cycle that feeds the conference, backward-planning experiments and annotation to the ARR deadline, scheduling the author response window, deciding commit versus revise-and-resubmit, and mapping camera-ready and Budapest presentation logistics.

Use when revising an EMNLP draft for the venue's empirical voice — phenomenon-first framing, claims scoped to tested languages and domains, examples tied to counted errors, a Limitations section with content, honest hedging calibrated to evidence strength, and ACL two-column discipline for long and short formats.

Use when writing the cover letter and editor-facing metadata for an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) submission. EPSL is run by a team of subject editors who screen for frontier significance and letters fit, so the letter must land the process-level advance, steer to the right editor, and supply clean suggested reviewers. It drafts the letter; it does not contact editors.

Use when reducing and reporting data for an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript — full analytical-uncertainty budgets for isotope and geochronology data, defensible statistics (MSWD, weighted means, Bayesian age models), and inversion/model diagnostics. It guides reduction and reporting norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when building figures and tables for an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript. A Letter lives or dies by a few exhibits that a geochemist, seismologist, and geodynamicist can all read — maps with tectonic context, concordia/isochron plots with full error ellipses, model sections with resolution shown. It designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when positioning an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript against prior work. EPSL's readership spans geochemistry, geophysics, geodynamics, geochronology and planetary science, so the knowledge gap must be framed across sub-fields and against the frontier, not inside one method community. It frames the gap and citations; it does not fabricate references.

Use when assembling the supplementary material, data-availability statement, and FAIR data deposit for an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript. EPSL follows Elsevier's research-data policies and the community expects deposition in discipline repositories — EarthChem, PANGAEA, IRIS/EarthScope, MagIC, NASA PDS, Zenodo. It guides reporting and deposit; it does not generate the data.

Use when you need to understand how Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) evaluates a manuscript — subject-editor desk screening against the frontier bar, expert review typically drawn from the sub-fields the paper joins, and editor-led decisions. It sets expectations and hardens the paper before submission; it does not contact editors.

Use when responding to an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) revision decision. EPSL decisions are made by a subject editor on the advice of referees who often span two sub-fields, so the response must satisfy each specialist with evidence while keeping the Letter concise. It structures the revision and response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when designing the sampling, analytical, experimental, or modeling program for an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript so the design can carry a process-level claim — sample context, reference materials, replication, blank control, and model resolution planned before data exist. It guides design decisions; it does not execute the campaign.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) via Editorial Manager — letters-format length check, title page and highlights, declarations (competing interests, authorship, AI use), data-availability statement with repository DOIs, and figure/table file compliance. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when deciding whether a result fits Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) and how to frame it. EPSL takes concise, high-significance Letters on physical, chemical and mechanical processes of the Earth and planets, and desk-declines regional case studies without process-level insight, so this skill pressure-tests the frontier claim before you invest. It frames the contribution; it does not run analyses.

Use when starting or resuming any Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript and you need the entry point. Routes to the right EPSL sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and on whether the work matches the letters format (a concise, high-significance Letter; an invited Frontiers Paper; or a Comment/Reply). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or compressing prose for an Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) manuscript. The letters format demands a main text near the 6,500-word cap, a process-forward title and abstract, and prose legible to geochemists, geophysicists, and planetary scientists at once. It guides writing and cutting; it does not invent content.

Use when the identification argument is the bottleneck for an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript — causal identification of a policy effect, or parameter identification in a quantitative policy model. Stress-tests it to the EP bar (credible to an academic discussant, legible to a policy discussant) before exhibits are finalized.

Use when staking an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's contribution against the live policy debate and the adjacent academic literature. Sharpens the policy-and-academic positioning; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when responding to Economic Policy (EP) discussant comments and the panel debate — revising the paper for the camera-ready version that publishes alongside those comments. Plans the post-panel response; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when preparing an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript for its panel review — the two named discussants and the conference debate that replace standard anonymous refereeing. War-games the discussants; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when assembling the data, code, and verification materials for an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript so results are accessible and replicable to the journal's standard. Builds the verification-ready package; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's results may be specification-, sample-, or inference-fragile, especially ahead of the two-discussant panel. Organizes robustness by the threat a discussant will raise; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when running the final preflight for an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript — the commissioning route, the conference-ready draft, and the camera-ready version (not an open submission portal). Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's exhibits are too technical for a policy reader or do not carry the policy message. Redesigns tables and figures for the EP dual audience; it does not invent evidence or citations.