Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when writing the related-work and positioning of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper — comparing against the best known bounds in the TCS literature, crediting the right prior venues (STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS/CCC and TCS journals), stating the delta precisely, and keeping self-citations third-person under lightweight double-blind.

Use when making an ICALP (EATCS) theory result independently checkable — writing complete, self-contained proofs in the appendix and a full version (arXiv/ECCC/HAL), pinning any computational steps to reproducible certificates, and (optionally) formalizing key theorems in Coq/Lean/Isabelle, since ICALP has no runnable-artifact track and proof verifiability is the analogue of reproducibility.

Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.

Use when auditing an ICALP (EATCS) Track A or Track B submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the correct-track submission server, abstract registration before the full-paper deadline, the 15-page extended-abstract page budget with a clearly labelled appendix / full version, lightweight double-blind anonymity, the no-simultaneous-submission rule, and the single annual February AoE cutoff.

Use when splitting an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper between the 15-page main body and the clearly labelled appendix / full version — deciding what a referee must see in the body versus what may be deferred, ensuring every deferred proof is actually present and findable, and keeping the split consistent with lightweight double-blind review.

Use when deciding whether a theoretical computer science result belongs at ICALP (EATCS) and, if so, whether it is a Track A (algorithms, complexity, games) or Track B (automata, logic, semantics, theory of programming) paper, and when distinguishing ICALP from the US theory venues STOC, FOCS, and SODA or from a TCS journal by contribution shape, community, and the LIPIcs open-access model.

Use when planning an ICALP (EATCS) campaign backward from its single annual February deadline, through abstract registration, the anonymous submission, the Track B rebuttal window, the April notification, and the LIPIcs camera-ready and presentation, and when coordinating a full-version (arXiv/ECCC) release alongside the anonymous submission.

Use when shaping the exposition of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper — stating the model before the theorem, putting a legible theorem statement and its improvement over prior bounds on the first page, structuring the 15-page body around the argument while full proofs live in the appendix/full version, and meeting the correctness-and-clarity bar of Track A and Track B referees.

Use when packaging ICASSP code, data, audio or image samples, model checkpoints, scoring scripts, seeds, and logs, even though ICASSP has no formal artifact badge. Covers what signal-processing reviewers actually open, how single-blind review lets artifacts be public from the start, and how to make a task's measurement reproducible turnkey.

Use when drafting an ICASSP rebuttal or author response to reviews, covering the recently added and short author-response window, the single-blind setting where reviewers already know you, answering signal-processing reviewers from the four-page record without a revised PDF, and writing for the technical-committee decision rather than for tone.

Use when preparing an accepted ICASSP paper for IEEE Xplore publication, covering the final 4+1 PDF, IEEE PDF eXpress validation, the IEEE electronic copyright form, integrating reviewer-requested fixes without changing the accepted claim, registration and in-person presentation, and choosing open-access options for the proceedings paper.

Use when designing or auditing ICASSP experiments across signal-processing modalities — matching the metric to the task law (WER, SI-SDR, PESQ/STOI, EER/minDCF, PSNR/SSIM, BER, RMSE), anchoring baselines to current strong methods and standard corpora, sweeping the operating condition, and reporting spread over runs within the four-page limit.

Use when positioning an ICASSP submission across the signal-processing literature — IEEE SPS journals (TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP and siblings), sibling conferences (Interspeech, ICIP, EUSIPCO, WASPAA), and ML venues, citing normally under single-blind review, and sharpening the technical delta against the nearest current-cycle work in four pages.

Use when strengthening ICASSP reproducibility across signal-processing modalities — pinning the scoring ruler for the paper's metric, dataset versions and splits, front-end/DSP settings, seeds, and compute, and mapping each claim to a checkable location, since ICASSP has no reviewed appendix and the four pages plus a public release must carry it.

Use when reasoning about ICASSP peer review — the IEEE Signal Processing Society technical-committee pipeline, EDICS-based assignment, single-blind reviewing, the recently added short rebuttal, oral-versus-poster allocation, the roughly-even acceptance rate, and how a signal-processing decision is actually made and should be decoded.

Use when auditing an ICASSP submission before the CMS portal deadline — the IEEE 4+1 page format, the single-blind rule that the author list must appear, EDICS subject selection, the Compliance-with-Ethical-Standards statement, PDF eXpress validation, the 9-papers-per-author cap, dual-submission policy, and desk-reject triggers.

Use when deciding what goes in the four ICASSP pages versus a public release, given that ICASSP has no reviewed appendix — managing the 4+1 budget, curating optional multimedia (audio, image, video) that reviewers may open, hosting derivations and extra results externally, and keeping the main paper self-contained under single-blind review.

Use when deciding whether a project fits ICASSP, the IEEE Signal Processing Society flagship spanning all signal processing, and specifically for the ICASSP-versus-Interspeech routing decision for speech work, plus routing to ICIP, EUSIPCO, WASPAA, SPS journals, or ML venues by identifying the signal-processing primitive of the contribution.

Use when planning an ICASSP project timeline — the annual clock from venue fit through the September paper deadline, single-blind review, the short winter rebuttal, spring notification, IEEE Xplore camera-ready, and the May conference — with backward-planning offsets and the choice among standard, OJSP-ICASSP, and grand-challenge tracks.

Use when revising an ICASSP paper into the IEEE two-column four-page house style — leading with the signal-processing contribution and mechanism, naming the task-matched metric on the first page, compressing method and results into 4+1 pages without a reviewed appendix, and writing math-forward claims that survive a subfield-expert reviewer.

Use when packaging code, models, or data for an ICCV paper at review or release time, covering anonymous in-archive code under the do-not-cite-your-repo rule, the June-to-October release runway after acceptance, weight and license decisions in a field whose landmark releases became infrastructure, and reuse-grade packaging.

Use when ICCV reviews arrive and the one-page rebuttal must be drafted inside the one-week May window, covering the official template's constraints, evidence selection when no attachments or links are allowed, addressing reviewers who are themselves deadline-crushed authors, and writing for the meta-review that follows.

Use when an ICCV paper is accepted and the final version, releases, and October conference must be delivered, covering de-anonymization edits, the summer camera-ready window between June decisions and the autumn meeting, CVF open access plus IEEE Xplore publication, arXiv synchronization after the embargo lifts, and presenting at an international venue.

Use when designing the experimental program for an ICCV paper against the early-March deadline, covering benchmark-drift audits across the two-year gap, baseline fairness in the foundation-model era, ablations that isolate mechanisms, qualitative and failure evidence, and sequencing runs so the decisive result lands before the deadline, not after.

Use when positioning an ICCV paper against the literature, covering the intervening-cycle problem of citing a CVPR and an ECCV that happened since the last ICCV, concurrent-preprint etiquette around the March deadline, double-blind self-reference and the do-not-cite-your-repo rule, and venue-attribution hygiene across the vision big three.

Use when hardening the reproducibility story of an ICCV paper, covering full recipe disclosure without a mandated compute form, protocol pinning for foundation-model and zero-shot evaluations, seed and variance honesty at vision training scale, and writing results that stay checkable across the two-year gap to the next ICCV.

Use when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement, the reviewer LLM prohibition, decision statistics at 24% acceptance, oral and Highlight tiers, and the post-decision Findings outlet.

Use when auditing an ICCV submission in the weeks before the early-March deadline, covering OpenReview registration and profile completeness, the single same-day paper-plus-supplement upload, the 8-page inclusive format, the 25-submissions-per-author cap, every-author reviewer enrollment, anonymity and media-embargo rules, and desk-reject triage.

Use when planning or auditing ICCV supplementary material under the same-day paper-plus-supplement deadline, covering what moves out of the 8-page body, parallel production of videos and code from February onward, double-blind hygiene inside the archive, and making depth material navigable for reviewers who choose to open it.

Use when deciding whether a computer-vision project should target ICCV, weighing the biennial odd-year cadence and its two-year option cost, what the Marr Prize lineage says about ICCV taste, honest odds at 24% acceptance, and when to hold work for CVPR, ECCV, WACV, or a journal instead of forcing the March deadline.

Use when project-managing an ICCV campaign across the odd-year cycle, covering the autumn fork between CVPR and ICCV, the early-March registration and single submission deadline, May rebuttal week, late-June decisions, the October conference with international travel and visa lead times, and the ECCV/CVPR fallback ladder if the paper misses.

Use when drafting or revising the prose and figures of an ICCV paper, covering writing for an international generalist reviewer pool, the inclusive 8-page economy, mechanism-first exposition, calibrated claims that survive a one-page rebuttal cycle, and captions and figures that carry the paper for readers who skim first.

Use when packaging IEEE ICDE code, data, workload generators, and logs as supplemental material whose availability reviewers score, and for any post-acceptance reproducibility or badge process the edition runs. Covers what a builder-heavy committee inspects first, making a data-systems benchmark turnkey, and single-blind packaging.

Use when responding to IEEE ICDE reviews, whether drafting a rebuttal to reviewer concerns or preparing a revise-and-resubmit change document for an invited ICDE revision under the 4-week window, coordinating with area chairs, addressing systems-reviewer pushback on baselines and cost, and deciding what is feasible before the revision deadline.

Use when preparing an accepted IEEE ICDE paper for camera-ready and IEEE Xplore publication: IEEE eCopyright and PDF-eXpress validation, the IEEE double-column final format, integrating required changes without scope creep, final artifact release, registration and presentation, and the TKDE extended-version invitation.

Use when designing or auditing IEEE ICDE experiments for a data-engineering paper: workload realism, tuned baselines, scale curves over single points, throughput and tail-latency with declared variance, mechanism-isolating ablations, cost/loss disclosure, and hardware reporting that satisfies a builder-heavy committee.

Use when positioning an IEEE ICDE submission against the database canon and neighboring venues, running a reinvention audit across SIGMOD, VLDB, EDBT, and shipping systems, handling two-round concurrency, distinguishing engineering delta from genuine novelty, and covering both the literature and production systems an ICDE reviewer expects.

Use when strengthening reproducibility evidence for an IEEE ICDE data-engineering paper: pinning hardware, storage devices, software versions, datasets and workload generators, seeds, and variance protocol; ensuring baseline-tuning fairness; tracing figures to raw logs; and packaging supplemental material whose availability ICDE scores.

Use when explaining or planning around IEEE ICDE peer review: the two-round-per-edition structure, area-chair-coordinated assignment with at least three reviewers, two-phase reviewing with a possible Revise & Resubmit, single-blind dynamics, how a builder-heavy committee reads a systems paper, and how outcomes feed IEEE Xplore.

Use when auditing an IEEE ICDE research-track submission for round choice, Microsoft CMT setup, conflict declarations, the IEEE 12-page format, single-blind requirements, supplemental-material availability, the June/November two-round calendar, desk-reject triggers, and final-week sequencing for a data-engineering systems paper.

Use when preparing IEEE ICDE supplemental material for the CMT submission: what belongs in the 12-page body versus the supplement, the runnable artifact package (README, run_all.sh, run_small.sh, generators), extended experiments, and single-blind packaging that lets a reviewer assess availability without the body depending on it.

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong IEEE ICDE fit, routing among the three database venues from ICDE's seat (SIGMOD's quarterly rounds vs PVLDB's monthly deadlines vs ICDE's two rounds), choosing ICDE research vs industry track, applying the data-management-primitive test, and comparing with TKDE, EDBT, or systems venues.

Use when planning an IEEE ICDE project timeline around the two-round-per-edition calendar, choosing between the June and November research deadlines, budgeting for a possible revise-and-resubmit window, and backward-planning a data-engineering systems paper from CMT submission through review, camera-ready, and IEEE Xplore publication.

Use when revising an IEEE ICDE paper for the first-page data-engineering contract, a reconstructable mechanism description, the running-example device, performance claims scoped to the workloads actually run, single-blind first-person phrasing, and 12-page IEEE two-column compression that survives a builder-heavy program committee.

Use when packaging code, data, and logs for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - building the anonymized, history-scrubbed repository that the PDF must cite for a triple-blind Research Track submission, how the single-blind Applied Track changes what may be revealed, and the smoke checks that make an ICDM artifact reviewer-usable.

Use when preparing for the review phase of an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) submission - planning for a venue whose tradition is NO author rebuttal, pre-answering reviewer questions inside the submitted PDF and cited artifact, and, only if the current edition opens a response window, drafting a tight anonymity-safe reply.

Use when preparing the ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) camera-ready after acceptance - IEEE final formatting and eCopyright, de-anonymizing a triple-blind paper, handling an Accept-as-Short outcome by compressing to short-paper length, registering for in-person presentation, and getting the paper into IEEE Xplore.

Use when designing or auditing the empirical evaluation for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - mining-task definition, strong and fairly-tuned baselines, ablations that isolate the named mechanism, scalability curves that test scale claims, and discovery-validity checks that separate real findings from evaluation artifacts.

Use when positioning an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper's related work - lineage against prior ICDM editions and IEEE data-mining neighbors, the mechanism-contrast novelty sentence, avoiding KDD/SDM/CIKM/WSDM venue misattribution, and citing your own prior work in the third person so the section stays triple-blind-safe.

Use when strengthening reproducibility for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - seeds, configs, compute and data reporting, and an anonymized reproduction package that survives the Research Track's triple-blind regime while every detail fights for room inside the single 10-page IEEE all-inclusive cap.