Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when reasoning about the ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) review machinery - the triple-blind mechanics, the Accept / Accept-as-Short / Reject outcome space, the mixed data-mining reviewer pool, PC Co-Chair decision-making, the traditional no-rebuttal posture, and how to read an ICDM decision packet.

Use when auditing an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) submission for readiness, covering Research-vs-Applied track choice and its anonymity regime, the triple-blind sweep, the 10-page IEEE all-inclusive cap, the single June deadline, in-paper artifact references, and the desk-level triggers that get an ICDM paper rejected without review.

Use when organizing supplementary and appendix material for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - deciding what belongs in the body, in an appendix that counts inside the single 10-page IEEE cap, or in an external anonymized repository, plus planning the compression if the paper is accepted as a short paper.

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) fit, choosing among its Research, Applied, and Blue Sky tracks, and comparing ICDM with KDD, SDM, CIKM, WSDM, WWW, ICDE, or the ML flagships by contribution type, sponsor community, and the data-mining routing calendar seen from ICDM's June deadline.

Use when planning an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) project timeline from venue fit through the abstract and full-paper deadlines, the long summer wait to the August notification, the no-rebuttal review, the possible short-paper acceptance branch, IEEE camera-ready, and in-person presentation on a single annual deadline.

Use when drafting or revising prose for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - the data-regime-first register, the named-mechanism discipline, measured-scale language instead of scalability adjectives, discovery-validity sentences, triple-blind-safe self-reference, and compression into the single 10-page IEEE all-inclusive cap.

Use when preparing the "artifact" of an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper, which at a pure-theory venue is the complete-proofs full version rather than a code package — covering why ICDT has no ACM-style artifact-badging or code-artifact track, what the marked appendix and the archived arXiv full version must contain, and (only for the rare algorithmic paper) how any code should be handled.

Use when responding to ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) referees — principally the first-cycle Revise-and-resubmit round, where you return a corrected paper that closes each identified proof gap, plus any short author-comment phase, keeping the response anonymous and mapping every referee point to a concrete change in the revised PDF.

Use when preparing the final LIPIcs camera-ready for an accepted ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper — the lipics-v2021 final document, mandatory ACM CCS concepts and keywords, author ORCIDs, de-anonymization, complete proofs and the full-version link, CC-BY licensing, and passing the Dagstuhl/DROPS production checks that mint the DOI.

Use when deciding what counts as evidence for an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) result — matching-bound complexity analysis as the primary evidence, worked examples and counterexamples that establish separations, and, only for papers with an algorithmic contribution, a proportional and honestly-scoped experimental evaluation that does not pretend to be the contribution.

Use when positioning an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper against the database-theory literature — covering the ICDT/PODS lineage, finite model theory and complexity, delta-first positioning against the nearest prior theorem, honest treatment of overlapping bounds, and keeping self-citations anonymous under the since-2024 rule.

Use when strengthening the verifiability of an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper — the theory-venue analogue of reproducibility — covering complete and self-contained proofs, exact models and assumptions, claim-to-proof mapping, matching upper and lower bounds, consistency between the LIPIcs paper and the arXiv full version, and honest labeling of what is proved versus conjectured.

Use when reasoning about how an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) submission is evaluated, covering the two-submission-cycle model, the first-cycle revision (Accept / Revise / Reject) decision, anonymous review since 2024, the cross-cycle resubmission restriction, proof-correctness scrutiny by a database-theory PC, and how ICDT's process differs from PODS and from the co-located EDBT systems track.

Use when auditing an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) regular-paper submission for Microsoft CMT readiness, covering the two-step abstract-then-paper deadline in the correct submission cycle, the lipics-v2021 15-page limit excluding references, the clearly-marked appendix read at the PC's discretion, anonymous submission since 2024, the complete-proofs / full-version expectation, and which submission problems are unfixable after the AoE cutoff.

Use when deciding how to split an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper between the 15-page lipics-v2021 body and the clearly-marked appendix that referees read at their discretion, given that online/external appendices are not allowed and every proof needed to certify the result must live inside the single submitted PDF.

Use when deciding whether a database-theory project belongs at ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) or should be routed to PODS, the co-located EDBT systems track, a pure-TCS venue (LICS, ICALP, STACS), or a journal (ACM TODS, LMCS, TheoretiCS), and when distinguishing ICDT from its sibling database-theory flagship PODS by calendar, publisher, and community.

Use when planning an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) campaign end to end, running the two-submission-cycle calendar backward from a chosen cycle deadline through abstract registration, the first-cycle revision round, LIPIcs camera-ready, and presentation at the co-located EDBT/ICDT event.

Use when shaping the prose of an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper — the theorem-proof structure, stating the data model and computation model precisely, leading with the result and its data-management consequence, proof-sketch-then-appendix discipline within the lipics-v2021 15-page budget, and the notation conventions a database-theory referee expects.

Use when packaging the artifacts behind an ICRA paper — ROS packages, controllers, simulation environments, trained policies, CAD and PCB files, datasets, and trial logs — into something a robotics reviewer or reader can actually run or audit, given that ICRA has no formal artifact-badging track to certify it for you.

Use when responding to ICRA reviews in the channels that actually exist — turning decision-day reviewer comments into a disciplined camera-ready revision, writing the revise-and-resubmit response letter on the RA-L pathway, or converting an ICRA reject into a targeted IROS or RA-L resubmission — since classic ICRA offers no rebuttal.

Use when converting an accepted ICRA paper into its final form — the 8-page total limit including references, de-anonymization after double-anonymous review, PaperPlaza final upload and PDF compliance, IEEE electronic copyright transfer, final video, author registration requirements, and IEEE Xplore publication.

Use when designing or auditing the experimental section of an ICRA paper — real-robot versus simulation-only evidence, trial counts and success-rate reporting, task distributions and resets, baseline fairness on shared hardware, sim-to-real transfer claims, failure-mode analysis, and the statistics robotics reviewers actually expect.

Use when building or auditing the related-work section of an ICRA paper — covering the conference's own recent proceedings plus IROS, RSS, CoRL, RA-L, and T-RO lanes, handling arXiv-only robotics work, citing your own platform papers under ICRA's double-anonymous rules, and positioning against commercial systems.

Use when hardening an ICRA paper's reproducibility — specifying robot platform, firmware, ROS and driver versions, control rates, and sensor calibration; logging rosbags and seeds; separating what others can rerun (code, sim) from what they can only audit (your hardware trials); and writing honest availability statements.

Use when explaining or strategizing around ICRA's review pipeline — the RAS Conference Editorial Board of Editors and Associate Editors, reviewer recruitment through PaperPlaza, the absence of an author rebuttal in the classic ICRA flow, the January accept/reject decision, and how this differs from RA-L's revise-capable journal review.

Use when auditing an ICRA paper for upload — PaperPlaza account and metadata, the 6-page-plus-2-reference-page limit, IEEE two-column template compliance, the double-anonymous rule introduced in the 2026 cycle, video-attachment specs (180 s, 20 MB), dual-submission conflicts with RA-L, and return-without-review triggers.

Use when planning ICRA supplementary material, which in this venue means primarily the video attachment — 180 seconds, 20 MB, submitted in fixed PaperPlaza windows — plus external code links; covers storyboarding, showing failures, anonymization of footage, and what may never live only outside the 6+2-page PDF.

Use when deciding whether a robotics project belongs at ICRA, choosing between a direct ICRA submission and the RA-L journal route with conference presentation, or re-routing to IROS, RSS, CoRL, T-RO, HRI, or CASE based on contribution type, evidence shape, and the embodiment test.

Use when planning an ICRA submission calendar end to end — the September paper deadline, the two video-attachment windows, winter review silence, late-January notification, March camera-ready, and the May/June conference — or when interleaving a fallback RA-L or IROS plan around the single annual ICRA shot.

Use when drafting or tightening an ICRA manuscript — leading with the robot task and physical constraint, compressing a systems story into 6 IEEE two-column pages, writing figure-first for skimming reviewers, quantifying instead of demo-speak, and keeping notation consistent across kinematics, control, and learning sections.

Use when preparing an artifact for the ICSE Artifact Evaluation track after paper acceptance, covering the ACM badge system (Available, Reusable, Results Reproduced/Replicated), evaluator-proof packaging, archival requirements, open licensing, and the January-window timeline anchored to recent cycles.

Use when drafting an ICSE author response or executing a Major Revision, covering criterion-targeted replies to research-track reviews, the September response window, the four-week revision sprint to the November deadline, response-letter structure, and change tracking that survives PC re-review.

Use when converting an accepted ICSE research-track paper into its final published form, covering the extra camera-ready page, de-anonymization order, finalizing the Data Availability section with archival DOIs, IEEE-template production checks, and conference-presentation obligations to verify.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ICSE research-track paper, covering subject and benchmark selection, baseline fairness, statistical tests and effect sizes as SE reviewers expect them, qualitative-methods rigor, ablations for AI-based techniques, and threats-driven study design.

Use when building the related-work and positioning sections of an ICSE research-track paper, covering the literature lanes SE reviewers check, searching ACM DL, IEEE Xplore and dblp across the flagship venues, staying current in fast-moving areas like LLM4SE, and keeping self-citations double-anonymous.

Use when building the verifiability story of an ICSE research-track paper, covering the open-science policy's sharing-by-default expectation, the Data Availability section, anonymized replication packages at review time, provenance pinning for mining and LLM studies, and honest non-sharing justifications.

Use when reasoning about how an ICSE research-track submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous PC review, the four posted criteria, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject decision model, the revision-and-final-decision timeline, and what recent ICSE acceptance statistics imply for strategy.

Use when auditing an ICSE research-track submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the mandatory abstract deadline, the 10-page-plus-2-reference-page IEEE format, double-anonymous rules, the open-science Data Availability section, supplementary uploads, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.

Use when deciding what goes into the 10-page body versus the replication package of an ICSE research-track submission, covering the no-unlimited-appendix page model, anonymized supplementary links and HotCRP uploads, package organization for reviewer navigation, and content-placement rules that protect the review.

Use when deciding whether a software-engineering project belongs in the ICSE research track or should be routed to FSE, ASE, ISSTA, MSR, ICSME, EMSE/TSE/TOSEM, or an ICSE co-located track such as NIER, SEIP, SEIS, or Demonstrations, based on contribution type, evidence maturity, and audience.

Use when planning an ICSE research-track campaign end to end, covering the single-cycle calendar from the June abstract deadline through September response, October decisions, the November revision sprint, artifact evaluation, camera-ready, and the April conference, plus rerouting timelines after rejection.

Use when writing or revising an ICSE research-track paper, covering empirical-SE paper anatomy, research questions as the load-bearing structure, the threats-to-validity section the community expects, practitioner-grounded motivation, calibrated claims, and fitting a complete study into ten IEEE pages.

Use when packaging an IEEE ICSME artifact for the Joint Artifact Evaluation Track and ROSE Festival, covering the IEEE "Open Research Object" and "Research Object Reviewed" badges, what evaluators check first, DOI-issuing archives, evaluator-proof documentation, the shared track with SCAM and VISSOFT, and the separate post-acceptance deadline.

Use when drafting an IEEE ICSME author response during the double-anonymous author-response period, covering the early-decision cut that decides whether you respond at all, answering the PC's specific "Response Recommended" questions with existing evidence, staying anonymous, and doing it in one round with no Major Revision safety net.

Use when preparing an accepted IEEE ICSME paper for its IEEE Xplore camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the IEEEtran two-column format and page budget, the IEEE eCopyright form, integrating the reviewer-required and author-response changes without scope creep, permanentizing data-availability links, and the ROSE-Festival artifact handoff.

Use when designing or auditing IEEE ICSME empirical evaluations, covering real evolving subject systems, mining-software-repositories provenance, fair baselines, SE-standard statistics and effect sizes, change-history and survivorship confounds, qualitative rigor, contamination-aware LLM ablations, and matching evidence to the shape of each maintenance/evolution claim.

Use when positioning an IEEE ICSME submission against the software-maintenance and evolution literature across ICSME, SANER, MSR, ICPC, SCAM, ICSE/FSE, and the SE journals (TSE, EMSE), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-anonymous, and handling replication overlap and prior-version eligibility.

Use when strengthening IEEE ICSME reproducibility and open-science evidence, covering the data-availability statement, anonymized-but-runnable artifacts, mining and LLM provenance pinning, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between the paper and the artifact ahead of the ROSE-Festival IEEE badges.

Use when reasoning about how an IEEE ICSME research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-decision cut that issues Accept/Reject before the rebuttal, the "Response Recommended" author-response period, the single-round accept/reject model with no Major Revision, and how ICSME's process differs from FSE's journal-style round and ICSE's cycles.

Use when auditing an IEEE ICSME research-track submission for EasyChair readiness, covering the abstract-then-paper two-step deadline, the IEEEtran two-column 10+2 page budget, double-anonymous review, the open-science data-availability expectation, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.