Use when deciding what belongs in appendices versus the main text of a pure-mathematics manuscript for Annals of Mathematics — technical/auxiliary results, long computations, and machine-assisted computation. Math journals generally have no science-style "supplemental material"; everything essential stays in the main text.
Scanned 6/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill anmath-supplementary --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Anmath Supplementary?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-anmath-supplementary)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: anmath-supplementary
description: Use when deciding what belongs in appendices versus the main text of a pure-mathematics manuscript for Annals of Mathematics — technical/auxiliary results, long computations, and machine-assisted computation. Math journals generally have no science-style "supplemental material"; everything essential stays in the main text.
---
# Appendices and Auxiliary Results (anmath-supplementary)
## When to trigger
- A long, self-contained computation interrupts the main line of argument
- You have auxiliary lemmas that are needed but not conceptually central
- The proof depends on a machine computation that must be documented
- You are tempted to "move detail to supplement" the way science papers do — pause first
> Important: pure-mathematics journals generally **do not** have a science-style
> "supplemental material" section. Everything **essential** to the proof stays in the main
> text and must be fully present and verifiable there. Appendices hold material that is
> necessary but would break the flow if kept inline.
## What belongs where
| Material | Placement |
|----------|-----------|
| The Main Theorem and its proof's logical skeleton | Main text, always |
| The crux / new idea | Main text, in full |
| Key lemmas used by the main argument | Main text (state and prove) |
| Long but routine computation verifying an estimate | Appendix, referenced from main text |
| Standard background lemmas recalled for completeness | Appendix or Preliminaries |
| Technical case analysis that would swamp the main flow | Appendix, with the conclusion stated in main text |
| Machine computation (code, what was checked) | Appendix + archived code/data |
| Anything a referee must check to believe the theorem | Main text — never hide it |
## Appendix discipline
- Each appendix is **self-contained and clearly scoped** ("Appendix A. Proof of the
estimate in Lemma 3.4"). State in the main text exactly what the appendix establishes.
- The main text must **stand on its logic** with appendices referenced, not required to be
read in parallel to follow the argument.
- Do not use an appendix to **hide a gap**: if a step is essential and hard, it stays
visible. Appendices are for length relief, not for sweeping difficulty out of sight.
## Computer-assisted proofs
- If a result depends on machine computation, describe **precisely what was computed**, the
software and version, and the exact claim verified.
- Make the **code and data available** (archive, repository, or supplement permitted by the
journal) so a referee can reproduce or audit it.
- The human-readable argument must make clear **how** the computation closes the proof; the
computation is evidence within a proof, not a substitute for exposition.
## Checklist
- [ ] Everything essential to the theorem is in the main text, not an appendix
- [ ] The crux/new idea is fully in the main text
- [ ] Each appendix is self-contained with a clear scope statement
- [ ] The main text states what each appendix establishes and references it
- [ ] No proof gap is concealed by relegation to an appendix
- [ ] Any machine computation is documented (software, version, exact claim)
- [ ] Code/data for computer-assisted steps are archived and citable
## Anti-patterns
- Treating an appendix as a science-style "supplement" and shipping essentials there
- Pushing the hard step to an appendix to make the main text look clean
- A machine computation with no description of what was actually checked
- Unavailable / unreproducible code behind a computer-assisted claim
- Appendices the reader *must* consult continuously just to follow the main argument
- An appendix that restates main-text material instead of carrying new detail
## Output format
```
【Stays in main text】Main Thm, crux, key lemmas: ...
【To appendix】App A: ...; App B: ...
【Reason each is appendix-not-main】length relief, not gap-hiding: ...
【Computer-assisted?】no / yes — software, version, what was checked, archive location
【Gap check】no essential step hidden / fix: ...
【Next step】anmath-writing-style
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!