Use when deciding what belongs in a TACAS (ETAPS) paper body versus its appendix, supplementary website, and artifact, covering the 16-page (or 6-page) llncs.cls budget that excludes references and appendix, the rule that decision-critical content stays in the reviewed pages, category-appropriate anonymity of supplementary material, and how to split a verification paper between body, appendix, and a mandatory-or-voluntary artifact.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill tacas-supplementary --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Tacas Supplementary?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-tacas-supplementary)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: tacas-supplementary
description: Use when deciding what belongs in a TACAS (ETAPS) paper body versus its appendix, supplementary website, and artifact, covering the 16-page (or 6-page) llncs.cls budget that excludes references and appendix, the rule that decision-critical content stays in the reviewed pages, category-appropriate anonymity of supplementary material, and how to split a verification paper between body, appendix, and a mandatory-or-voluntary artifact.
---
# TACAS Supplementary
Use this when assembling TACAS supplementary material. The governing rule: **the paper must be
judgeable from the reviewed pages alone.** The appendix, the supplementary website, and the artifact
support the paper; they do not hold the argument. Reviewers read supplementary material at their
discretion, so anything the decision depends on lives in the body.
## What goes where
| Content | Body (within page limit) | Appendix / website / artifact |
|---|---|---|
| Problem, contribution, and the soundness claim | Yes | — |
| The core algorithm / tool architecture | Yes | Full pseudocode variants, extra config |
| The soundness argument | Theorem + proof sketch in body | Full proof in appendix |
| Headline benchmark results | Yes (key table) | Full per-benchmark tables, extra plots |
| Benchmark setup (machine, timeout, baseline) | Stated in body | Full logs, raw outputs |
| The tool itself + reproduction scripts | A pointer | The artifact (mandatory for tools) |
| Extra examples, secondary optimizations | Summary | Appendix / website |
If a reviewer would need to open the appendix or artifact to know whether the result is sound or the
comparison is fair, the paper is mis-partitioned — move that into the body.
## The page-budget discipline
TACAS's `llncs.cls` budget (16 pages for research / case-study / regular tool; **6 pages** for
tool-demonstration) **excludes references and a clearly marked end appendix**. Consequences:
- Keep the **soundness claim, the core algorithm, and the headline comparison in the body** — they
are decision-critical.
- Full proofs, per-benchmark tables, and secondary material go to the **appendix** (at the end,
clearly marked) or a **supplementary website**, with explicit forward references.
- Do not use the appendix or artifact to smuggle in a result that would not otherwise fit — an
argument that only closes with out-of-body material reads as unreviewable. Appendices are read at
the reviewer's discretion.
## Category-appropriate anonymity of supplementary material
```text
[Research (double-blind)] appendix, website, and any review artifact must be anonymous: no authors,
affiliations, acks, grants, cluster paths, tool identity, or repo owners;
route the website through an anonymizing host
[Tool / case-study (single-blind)] supplementary material is named; the tool identity is expected,
but still ship a clean archive (no credentials, no .git cruft)
[Clean archive] no .git history, .DS_Store, credentials, caches, or huge irrelevant files
[Opens clean] verify the appendix/website/artifact is navigable and the README orients a
reader in one minute
```
## The mandatory-artifact interaction (tool and tool-demo papers)
For a **regular tool** or **tool-demonstration** paper the artifact is not "supplementary" in the
optional sense — it is a **mandatory, evaluated** deliverable submitted after the paper. Split so
that the body makes the paper judgeable *and* the artifact makes every claim reproducible; the two
must agree. See `tacas-artifact-evaluation` and `tacas-reproducibility`.
## Vignette: splitting a research paper with a long proof
A paper with a new algorithm, a substantial soundness proof, and a large benchmark table: the body
keeps the algorithm, the theorem with a proof sketch, the key benchmark comparison with the setup
stated, and the external-validity limits; the appendix holds the full proof and the per-benchmark
tables; the (voluntary) artifact holds the tool and the scripts that regenerate the tables. Nothing
decision-critical — soundness or comparison fairness — lives only outside the body.
## Output format
```text
[Supplement status] ready / needs fixes / not ready
[Partition check] anything decision-critical (soundness/fairness) outside the body? <none / move: what>
[Page budget] body within 16/6 limit? references + appendix excluded correctly? yes/no
[Anonymity] (research) appendix/website/artifact clean of identity + metadata? passed/issues
[Body dependency] <what a reviewer can decide without opening the appendix/artifact>
```
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!