Use when deciding what belongs inside the six reviewed pages of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript versus in an external repository, given DAC's tight 6+1 budget, its references-only seventh page, the double-blind constraint on any linked material, and the absence of a formal reviewed-appendix or artifact-badging track.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill dac-supplementary --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Dac Supplementary?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-dac-supplementary)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: dac-supplementary
description: Use when deciding what belongs inside the six reviewed pages of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript versus in an external repository, given DAC's tight 6+1 budget, its references-only seventh page, the double-blind constraint on any linked material, and the absence of a formal reviewed-appendix or artifact-badging track.
---
# DAC Supplementary Material
Use this to split content between the reviewed pages and anything external. DAC's constraint is
severe and specific: the manuscript is **6 pages of body plus one references-only page**, and unlike
some venues DAC does **not** provide an unlimited reviewed appendix or a formal artifact-evaluation
track (**待核实** per cycle). The governing rule follows directly: **anything that decides
acceptance must fit inside the six body pages**, because a reviewer is neither obligated to nor
guaranteed to open external material.
## The decision-criticality test
For each piece of content, ask: *would a reviewer need this to be convinced the contribution is real
and the QoR claim is fair?* If yes, it belongs in the body. If it merely lets a motivated reader
reproduce or extend the work, it can live externally.
| Content | Where it goes | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The headline QoR results and the mechanism | Body (6 pages) | Decision-critical; reviewers judge on these |
| Per-benchmark result table for the main claim | Body | The fairness of the comparison is the paper |
| The key ablation | Body | Attribution of the gain is decision-critical |
| Full hyperparameter grids, extra corners, exhaustive per-instance logs | External repo | Supports reproduction, does not decide acceptance |
| Source code, scripts, generated datasets | External repo | Reproducibility, not a reviewed deliverable |
| Extra proofs/derivations too long for six pages | External repo, with the result stated in-body | The claim must stand in-body; detail can be external |
## The seventh page is references only
DAC's most mechanical rule: the one extra page holds **references and nothing else**. Do not treat
it as an appendix — an extra figure, a paragraph, or a table there is grounds for **desk rejection**
(`../dac-submission`). Plan the technical argument to end cleanly at page six.
## External material under double-blind
If you link a repository, dataset, or artifact at review time, it must be **anonymized** exactly
like the PDF:
- No author names, institution names, or lab-named tools in the repo, README, or commit metadata.
- Host on an anonymizing service or a fresh anonymous mirror; a personal GitHub URL de-anonymizes.
- Strip cluster paths, internal server names, and vendor-flow fingerprints from any logs or scripts
you include.
- Remember reviewers may **not** open it — so external material can only *strengthen* a paper that
already stands on its six pages, never *rescue* one that does not.
## What DAC does not have (plan accordingly)
- **No formal reviewed appendix** — do not write "see the appendix" for anything decision-critical;
there is no guaranteed extra reviewed space beyond the six pages.
- **No standing ACM artifact-badging track** for research manuscripts (**待核实**) — so an artifact
earns you credibility and citations, not a badge; build it for reproducibility and community use,
not for a review score (`../dac-artifact-evaluation`, `../dac-reproducibility`).
## Compression before relegation
Before moving something out, try to *earn* its space in the body: convert a prose result to a
compact table, merge two figures, cut standard EDA background the reviewers already know. Six dense
double-column pages hold more than first drafts assume.
## Output format
```text
[Split audit] each item -> body (decision-critical) / external (reproduction) / cut
[Seventh page] references only, no body content? yes/no
[External anon] linked repo/dataset/artifact anonymized? reviewer-optional acknowledged? yes/no
[Stands alone] does the paper convince on its six pages without external material? yes/no
[Compression] space reclaimed before relegating anything? yes/no
```
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!