Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when preparing an accepted ISCA paper's artifact for evaluation under the ACM Review and Badging policy — scoping which results are reproducible within evaluator budgets, packaging simulator-heavy workflows others can run, writing the evaluator-facing appendix, and earning badges that print on the paper.

Use when ISCA reviews arrive and the rebuttal-plus-revision window opens — triaging objections by what a three-week window can actually fix, deciding between textual rebuttal and a revised PDF with new experiments, structuring responses that arm a champion at the PC meeting, and avoiding window-burning mistakes.

Use when converting an accepted ISCA paper into its published form — de-anonymizing authors, acknowledgments, and artifact links; satisfying the edition's publisher workflow under the alternating ACM/IEEE arrangement; integrating shepherd requirements and badges; and preparing the June talk and attendance logistics.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ISCA paper — pinning simulator fidelity to the claims it must carry, documenting gem5-class configurations and sampling choices, selecting workload suites that represent the claim's domain, tuning baselines in good faith, and separating architectural effect from modeling artifact.

Use when positioning an ISCA submission against prior art — covering five decades of architecture literature across ACM DL, IEEE Xplore, and dblp, differentiating by mechanism rather than metric, handling self-citations and arXiv preprints under double-blind rules, and exploiting ISCA's unlimited reference pages.

Use when making an ISCA paper's results regenerable — pinning simulator versions and local patches, archiving per-figure configuration manifests, recording workload provenance and sampling seeds, quantifying run-to-run variation on real hardware, and keeping the environment resurrectable through the February window.

Use when reasoning about how an ISCA submission is evaluated — the two-round review structure with December and February reviewer waves, what the combined rebuttal-and-revision window means for decisions, PC-meeting dynamics at a flagship architecture venue, and how to read the eventual outcome.

Use when running the final pre-deadline audit of an ISCA submission — the two-step abstract-then-paper gate a week apart, the 11-page text limit with unlimited references, the template check, the double-blind sweep including PDF metadata and anonymized artifact links, and HotCRP form completion before AoE.

Use when deciding what accompanies an ISCA submission beyond the 11 reviewed pages — what must live inside the page budget because reviewers see nothing else, how to use fully anonymized artifact links under the double-blind rules, staging material for the revision window, and planning post-acceptance release.

Use when deciding whether a project belongs at ISCA, the ACM/IEEE flagship architecture symposium — testing whether the machine itself is the contribution, choosing between ISCA's November gate and the MICRO, HPCA, and ASPLOS seats in the architecture year, and weighing the main track against the industry track.

Use when planning a full ISCA campaign on a calendar — working back from the expected mid-November abstract and paper deadlines to freeze simulation evidence in time, staffing the winter two-round review wait, preparing for the February-March rebuttal and revision window, and branching to camera-ready, artifacts, and the June conference.

Use when drafting or revising an ISCA paper's prose — organizing 11 pages around one architectural insight, writing the motivation section from measured data, describing mechanisms at reviewer-checkable precision with figures that carry the design, and keeping quantitative claims calibrated to the instrument behind them.

Use when packaging an ISSTA tool, benchmark, and results for the artifact-evaluation track, covering the ACM badges (Artifacts Available via Zenodo, Evaluated Functional and Reusable, Results Reproduced), the anonymous review-time copy, containerization, a runnable entry point, and what ISSTA artifact evaluators actually try first.

Use when drafting an ISSTA author response for the rebuttal window or planning a Major-Revision resubmission, covering evidence-anchored replies, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, converting reviewer asks into a revision ledger, anonymity in the response, and the difference between a rebuttal claim and a promised change.

Use when preparing an accepted ISSTA paper for the ACM Digital Library camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the final ACM sigconf layout without the review/anonymous options, ACM rights forms and DOI, metadata and CCS concepts, the artifact DOI and badge display, registration, and the in-person presentation obligation.

Use when designing or auditing ISSTA experiments, covering real subject programs and benchmarks like Defects4J, fair tool-baseline configuration, bug-finding and coverage metrics, non-parametric comparison with effect sizes, equal-budget protocols, repeated runs, and matching evidence to the claim being made.

Use when positioning an ISSTA submission against the testing and analysis literature, covering the sibling venues (ICSE, FSE, ASE, ICST, PLDI, CAV), delta-first framing against the nearest technique, double-anonymous self-citation, distinguishing the closest tool baseline, and avoiding the venue-confusion of citing a paper to the wrong conference.

Use when strengthening ISSTA reproducibility and verifiability evidence, covering pinned subject programs and benchmark versions, random seeds and timeout budgets, non-determinism disclosure for fuzzing and analysis, claim-to-evidence traceability, tool availability statements, and keeping the artifact consistent with the paper's tables.

Use when explaining or planning around ISSTA peer review, covering double-anonymous reviewing, at least three PC reviews, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, the phase-two major-revision resubmission, the named evaluation criteria, how the decision is actually synthesized, and how earlier editions ran multiple rolling deadlines.

Use when auditing an ISSTA submission for HotCRP readiness, the 18-page (excluding references) limit, ACM sigconf plus review and anonymous formatting, double-anonymous integrity, the January deadline, artifact intent, track choice among research/experience/replicability, and desk-reject triggers before the phase-one upload.

Use when deciding what lives in the ISSTA 18-page body versus the artifact and any appendix, covering the no-unlimited-appendix reality, what reviewers will and will not open, splitting a testing/analysis paper between body and package, anonymity of supplementary material, and keeping decision-critical evidence inside the reviewed pages.

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ISSTA fit versus ICSE, FSE, ASE, ICST, PLDI/CAV, or an SE journal, identifying whether the contribution is a testing/analysis technique, characterizing its evaluation shape, and sharpening the framing before writing begins.

Use when planning an ISSTA project timeline from venue fit through the January research-paper deadline, the March author response, the April first decision, the May Major-Revision sprint, the June final decision, artifact evaluation, and the October symposium, with backward-planning offsets for a testing/analysis tool paper and its artifact.

Use when revising an ISSTA paper for a clear testing/analysis contribution, covering the threat-model-then-technique structure, the evaluation contract, a threats-to-validity section that is not boilerplate, claims scoped to the subjects tested, double-anonymous phrasing, and 18-page ACM sigconf discipline that survives specialist reviewers.

Use to adapt the idea of an "artifact" to a pure-theory venue — at ITCS there is no artifact-evaluation track, no code, and no badges; the analogue is making every claim independently verifiable through complete proofs in the submitted PDF and a matching public full version, plus checkable finite objects for any computational content.

Use to operate under the reality that ITCS has no rebuttal or author-response phase — pre-empting reviewer objections inside the submission, then handling the post-decision situation (camera-ready window on accept, or rerouting and reusing the reviews on reject) since there is no revise-and-resubmit.

Use when preparing an accepted ITCS paper for open-access publication in LIPIcs — switching to the lipics-v2021 document class, de-anonymizing, completing LIPIcs metadata (ACM CCS, keywords, funding), folding in reviewer-noted fixes, and passing the Schloss Dagstuhl production checks.

Use when deciding what counts as evidence for an ITCS theory claim — proofs as the primary evidence, worked examples and separations that make a model concrete, and the rare, well-scoped illustrative computation or simulation — and how to keep any computational content checkable and subordinate to the mathematics.

Use when positioning an ITCS paper against the theory literature — writing the delta that proves the model/question is genuinely new, covering the right STOC/FOCS/SODA/CCC/TCC lanes, and staying honest under lightweight double-blind where the reference list is not anonymized.

Use to make an ITCS paper's mathematics independently checkable — complete proofs of every central claim, self-contained definitions, pinned dependencies on prior results, and a matching full version on arXiv/ECCC/ePrint — the pure-theory analogue of a reproducibility package.

Use to model the ITCS reviewing pipeline — a program committee plus external reviewers, conceptual-novelty weighting, lightweight double-blind, no author-response/rebuttal phase, and a single accept/reject decision — and to understand where the (limited) author leverage actually is.

Use when auditing an ITCS submission for HotCRP readiness — the early-September abstract-then-paper deadlines, single-column >= 11pt format with no hard page limit, the first-10-pages merits window, complete proofs of all central claims, the lightweight double-blind sweep, and the archival-prior-publication check.

Use when splitting an ITCS paper's content between the body, the appendix, and the arXiv/ECCC/ePrint full version — deciding by what a reviewer must verify, so no central proof lives only in a preprint the PC is not obligated to read, while keeping the first-10-pages merits window clean.

Use when deciding whether a theoretical-computer-science result belongs at ITCS or should be routed to STOC, FOCS, SODA, CCC, ICALP, TCC, or a journal, and when distinguishing ITCS from its depth-first siblings by the conceptual-novelty test — is this a new question, model, or connection worth asking, rather than the deepest theorem of the year.

Use to plan an ITCS campaign end to end on its single annual cycle — backward from the early-September deadline through the no-rebuttal review, the November notification, the LIPIcs camera-ready, and the January conference with its Graduating Bits session.

Use when drafting or revising an ITCS paper's abstract, introduction, and technical presentation so the conceptual innovation lands before any theorem, the model is motivated as a lens rather than a tweak, scope and limitations are owned up front, and complete proofs are deferred cleanly — matching the ITCS emphasis on new ideas over technical depth.

Use when the identification argument is the bottleneck for an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript — structural parameter identification, empirical causal identification, or for a theory result, what makes it tightly pinned. Stress-tests the data-to-object mapping to IER's rigor bar; it does not run the estimation.

Use when staking an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript's contribution against the frontier and against sibling journals (Econometrica/QE, the top-5, field journals). Sharpens the gap and the delta; it does not invent citations.

Use when an International Economic Review (IER) decision letter or referee report needs a response strategy and a revision plan. Triages comments and structures the response letter to a rigor-leaning, theory-tilted review; it does not invent new results.

Use when anticipating referee objections before submitting an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript, or when reading the room of an IER review. Maps the likely objections by archetype and pre-empts them; it does not draft the response letter (see ier-rebuttal).

Use when assembling the data/code deposit and proof appendix for an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript under its AER-style data availability policy. Covers the deposit, README, data availability statement, and self-contained proofs; it does not write the analysis code.

Use when an International Economic Review (IER) result may be sensitive to specification, sample, functional form, calibration, or inference choices. Organizes robustness by threat to the load-bearing assumption; it does not run the regressions.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript via the Editorial Express portal — the submission fee gate, the ≤50-page limit, format and style, proprietary-data notification, and the AER data policy. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when exhibits in an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript are dense, do not carry the argument, or do not present structural/theory results well. Makes each exhibit answer one question; it does not generate the data.

Use when the model is the contribution for an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript and its assumptions, results, or comparative statics are not yet tight. Stress-tests load-bearing assumptions, generality, and the proof to IER's theory/structural bar; it does not write the proofs.

Use when deciding whether a question is broad and rigorous enough for an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript, and which branch (theory / structural-macro / econometric method / applied micro) frames it. Tests fit and scope; it does not invent evidence or citations.

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

Use when an International Economic Review (IER) manuscript's prose, intro, or abstract does not land for a rigor-leaning, broad economics audience. Sharpens the model-to-evidence narrative and the intro; it is a late-stage polish, not a content fix.

Use when analyzing and reporting results for a Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) manuscript using SEM, multilevel (HLM) models, mediation/moderation, or meta-analysis. JAP requires effect sizes with confidence intervals, model-based indirect effects with bootstrap CIs, fit indices, full disclosure, and a clean confirmatory/exploratory split. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning a Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) manuscript against the I-O literature so the theoretical contribution is unmistakable. JAP expects the gap and the advance stated against the closest prior work — and a clear distinction from sibling venues (Personnel Psychology, AMJ, OBHDP, JOB). Stakes the contribution; it does not write the literature review.