Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE ICSME paper body versus its anonymized artifact and appendices, covering the IEEEtran two-column 10-page budget where figures and appendices count, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, double-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split a mining/evolution paper between body and package.

Use when deciding whether a software-engineering project belongs at IEEE ICSME (maintenance, evolution, reverse engineering, program comprehension, technical debt, refactoring, mining software repositories) or should be routed to ICSE, FSE, ASE, ISSTA, MSR, SANER, SCAM, or an SE journal (TSE/EMSE), and when to use ICSME's Journal-First, Registered Reports, or RENE tracks instead of the research track.

Use when planning an IEEE ICSME project timeline from venue and track choice through abstract registration, paper submission, the early-decision cut and author-response rebuttal, notification, IEEE Xplore camera-ready, the ROSE-Festival artifact evaluation, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a maintenance/evolution paper and honest handling of the single-annual-round calendar.

Use when revising an IEEE ICSME paper for a maintenance/evolution contribution stated on the first page, research-question contracts, a threats-to-validity section that argues rather than recites, evidence proportional to the claim, double-anonymous wording, and disciplined use of the IEEEtran two-column 10-page budget.

Use when preparing an IEEE S&P (Oakland) artifact-evaluation submission after acceptance, including choosing among the Available, Functional, and Results Reproduced badges, DOI-backed deposits, packaging exploits and malware-adjacent code responsibly, and scoping what evaluators can actually re-run.

Use when drafting the IEEE S&P (Oakland) rebuttal for second-round papers or the response plan for a Revise decision, including triaging reviews under the ~5-day window, answering adaptive-attack and threat-model objections, handling ethics questions with documentation, and writing against the Revise expectations summary.

Use when converting an IEEE S&P (Oakland) acceptance into a final paper, including working the shepherd against the draft meta-review's concern list, adding the ethics section, de-anonymizing and restoring disclosure specifics, IEEE compsoc and Xplore requirements, and coordinating artifact submission.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper, including end-to-end attack demonstration, adaptive-adversary evaluation of defenses, measurement sampling and validity, baselines and ablations, statistical reporting of attack success, and the ethics constraints that shape what experiments are permissible.

Use when positioning an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper against prior literature, including coverage across the four security flagships, concurrent-work and arXiv norms, the 40% resubmission-overlap disclosure, verifying venue attribution via dblp and IEEE Xplore, and anonymity-safe self-citation.

Use when hardening the reproducibility of an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper's evidence before submission, including environment pinning for exploits and side channels, seed and trial reporting for probabilistic attacks, measurement snapshotting of live systems, and honest availability statements under ethical release limits.

Use when reasoning about IEEE S&P (Oakland) peer review, including the rounds inside each cycle, early-reject notices, the rebuttal for second-round papers, the Accept/Revise/Reject decision set, the Research Ethics Committee, shepherding of accepted papers, and the one-year resubmission embargo.

Use when auditing an IEEE S&P (Oakland) submission for HotCRP readiness, including the registration freeze with ORCID matching, the 13-page/18-page compsoc format, anonymization, the Ethics Considerations field, SoK checkbox, conflict declarations, and the desk-reject triggers specific to S&P cycles.

Use when deciding what goes in an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper's appendix versus the 13-page body, including the 5-page references-and-appendices allowance, the rule that reviewers need not read appendices, marking requirements past page 13, and what must never be relegated out of the reviewed body.

Use when deciding whether a security or privacy project belongs at IEEE S&P (Oakland), including the threat-model test, SoK fit, routing among USENIX Security, CCS, NDSS, PETS, and CRYPTO, and whether the one-year resubmission embargo or the 40% overlap rule constrains the plan.

Use when planning an IEEE S&P (Oakland) submission calendar across the two-cycle year, including registration-versus-paper deadlines, the early-reject and rebuttal windows, Revise resubmission timing, the one-year embargo clock, and choosing which cycle a project can realistically hit.

Use when writing or revising an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper's prose, including the threat-model-first structure, calibrating security claims to evaluated boundaries, the first-round survival test for introductions, SoK voice, and fitting the argument into 13 compsoc pages.

Use when preparing an ACM IMC artifact for release, covering the artifact-availability declaration, post-acceptance availability shepherding, DOI-issuing dataset archives, documenting measurement provenance and vantage points, Community Contribution Award eligibility, and the difference between the anonymized review artifact and the public release.

Use when drafting ACM IMC author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the One-Shot-Revision resubmission that must address a bounded set of action points, keep double-blind anonymity, satisfy the reviewer champion, and be re-judged by the same reviewers at the next deadline.

Use when preparing an accepted ACM IMC paper for the proceedings, covering systematic de-anonymization, finalizing the Ethics and artifact-availability statements, permanentizing dataset and code links to DOI-issuing archives, satisfying the availability shepherd, Community Contribution Award eligibility, and ACM production checks.

Use when designing or auditing ACM IMC measurements, covering representative vantage points, honest ground truth, longitudinal design for a moving Internet, safe and ethical active measurement, coverage-bias quantification, provenance pinning, and matching the measurement to the shape of each claim about the real Internet.

Use when writing or auditing the related-work and positioning of an ACM IMC paper, covering the measurement literature lanes, positioning against prior datasets and vantage points, delta-first framing, citing the datasets and tools you build on, distinguishing IMC from SIGCOMM/NSDI/PAM prior art, and keeping self-citations double-blind.

Use when strengthening ACM IMC reproducibility and availability evidence, covering the artifact-availability declaration, measurement provenance (vantage points, dates, tool versions), dataset release with schema, honest reproducibility for a moving Internet, the Replicability Track, and consistency between what the paper claims and what the released data contains.

Use when reasoning about how an ACM IMC submission is evaluated, covering double-blind multi-round review, the Accept / One-Shot-Revision / Reject decision categories, the reviewer-champion rule and bounded action points, early rejection of consensus-reject papers, shepherding for artifact availability, and how IMC's two-deadline model differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI cycles.

Use when auditing an ACM IMC submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the paper-registration step, the acmart template with BBL upload, the full/short page limits, double-blind anonymity including vantage-point details, the mandatory Ethics section, the artifact-availability declaration, cycle choice, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.

Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM IMC paper body versus its appendix and released artifact, covering the acmart page limits, the rule that decision-critical evidence and the Ethics discussion stay in the reviewed pages, double-blind supplementary material, and how to split a measurement paper between body, appendix, and dataset.

Use when deciding whether an empirical networking project belongs at ACM IMC or should be routed to SIGCOMM, NSDI, CoNEXT, PAM, USENIX Security, WWW, or a journal, using the measurement-first test, the dataset/vantage-point lens, the ethics-gate check, and the two-deadline calendar.

Use when planning an ACM IMC campaign end to end, covering the choice between the two annual deadlines, backward planning from the target cutoff, the registration step, the One-Shot-Revision path across deadlines, availability shepherding, the camera-ready and dataset release, and the Replicability Track calendar.

Use when drafting or revising the prose of an ACM IMC measurement paper, covering the first-page measurement finding, making vantage points and methodology auditable, longitudinal framing for a moving Internet, arguing limitations rather than reciting them, writing the Ethics section early, and acmart page-budget discipline.

Use when the identification argument is the bottleneck for an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript — cross-country panel, high-frequency policy-surprise, crisis event study, narrative, or open-economy structural identification. Stress-tests the data-to-object mapping to IMFER's policy-relevant bar; it does not build the model (imfer-theory-model) or run the robustness suite (imfer-robustness).

Use when the contribution of an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript relative to the international-macro frontier and the sibling journals is unclear or undersold. Stakes the claim against JIE/JIMF/JMCB and the IMF research stream; it does not select the topic (imfer-topic-selection) or design identification (imfer-identification).

Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic/policy referee panel. Plans and drafts the response; it returns to imfer-submission for the resubmission preflight and does not re-run the original identification (imfer-identification).

Use when anticipating the objections a dual academic/policy IMF Economic Review (IMFER) referee will raise, so a manuscript pre-empts them before submission or addresses them in revision. Plans the defense; it does not draft the response letter (imfer-rebuttal) or run the submission preflight (imfer-submission).

Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript's data and code must be packaged for reproducibility — including restricted IMF/central-bank data paths, cross-country source lineage, and a runnable environment. Builds the package; it does not produce the exhibits (imfer-tables-figures) or run the submission preflight (imfer-submission).

Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript's headline cross-country estimate must be shown to survive specification, sample, country-composition, and inference choices before submission or in an R&R. Builds the robustness suite a dual academic/policy referee expects; it does not establish identification (imfer-identification) or format exhibits (imfer-tables-figures).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript via Editorial Manager — double-blind anonymization, italicized abstract with JEL codes, Chicago style, separate author-bio file, and the data-availability statement. Final checks; it does not draft content (imfer-writing-style) or plan the rebuttal (imfer-rebuttal).

Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript's exhibits must communicate an international-macro result to a dual academic/policy audience — transparent country coverage, readable cross-country panels, no significance asterisks. Builds the exhibits; it does not run the robustness behind them (imfer-robustness) or write the prose (imfer-writing-style).

Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript needs an open-economy model to discipline, interpret, or generate counterfactuals for its evidence — whether a full international-finance model leads the paper or a light framework supports an empirical estimate. Right-sizes the theory to IMFER's policy-relevant bar; it does not design identification (imfer-identification) or run robustness (imfer-robustness).

Use when deciding whether a question is right for an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript — international macro-finance with genuine policy relevance and an IMF-program or global-institution audience. Tests fit and scope; it does not run the identification (imfer-identification) or stake the contribution (imfer-literature-positioning).

Use when deciding which imfer-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) manuscript's prose must land for its dual academic/policy audience — a tight intro, an italicized abstract with JEL codes, Chicago style, and a clear policy "so what." Sharpens the writing; it does not build the exhibits (imfer-tables-figures) or run the submission preflight (imfer-submission).

Use when packaging IEEE INFOCOM code, simulators, and datasets for credibility and optional IEEE reproducibility badges, given that INFOCOM runs no standing artifact-evaluation track, covering DOI-issuing archives, evaluator-proof documentation, what the absence of a formal track changes, and how a released package strengthens a no-rebuttal submission.

Use when handling the IEEE INFOCOM post-submission reality — that the venue has traditionally offered no author rebuttal — covering how to write a self-defending submission, how to read and act on an early-reject, what to do after a final reject, and how to use any response window a given cycle does introduce (verify per cycle).

Use when preparing an accepted IEEE INFOCOM paper for its IEEE Xplore camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the IEEEtran final format and page budget, the IEEE electronic Copyright Form (eCF), PDF eXpress validation, the author-registration requirement, integrating reviewer-required changes without scope creep, and permanentizing any released artifact links.

Use when designing or auditing IEEE INFOCOM evaluations, covering analytical results with stated and justified assumptions, simulation with a named simulator and logged seeds, testbed and measurement studies with real traffic, honest and tuned baselines, and matching evidence to the shape of each networking claim across the analysis-simulation-testbed spectrum.

Use when positioning an IEEE INFOCOM submission against the networking literature across INFOCOM, SIGCOMM, NSDI, MobiCom, ICNP, and the journals (IEEE/ACM ToN, IEEE JSAC/TMC), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-blind on EDAS, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap.

Use when strengthening IEEE INFOCOM reproducibility even though the venue runs no formal artifact-evaluation track, covering pinned simulator setups, released code and datasets where possible, complete proofs and parameters within the page budget, IEEE reproducibility-badge options, and consistency between what the paper claims and what a reader could rebuild.

Use when reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and early-reject phase, the (traditional) absence of an author rebuttal, TPC discussion, and how INFOCOM's process differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI rebuttal-driven reviewing.

Use when auditing an IEEE INFOCOM main-conference submission for EDAS readiness, covering the two-step abstract-then-paper registration, the IEEEtran two-column 10-page/9-page-of-text budget, double-blind anonymization of the PDF and metadata, the five-papers-per-author cap, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.

Use when deciding what fits inside an IEEE INFOCOM paper's tight IEEEtran budget, covering the rule that appendices count toward the nine pages of text, the absence of a separate supplementary channel at review time, double-blind handling of any released material, and how to split an analytical or systems networking paper between the body and an optional external release.

Use when deciding whether a networking project belongs at IEEE INFOCOM or should be routed to SIGCOMM, NSDI, MobiCom, ICNP, or an IEEE/ACM networking journal (ToN, JSAC), distinguishing INFOCOM by its breadth, its analytical/optimization tradition alongside systems, and the modeling-vs-building axis.