Use when packaging an IEEE VIS artifact for the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative (GRSI) / TVCG Replicability Stamp and the IEEE VIS Open Practices program, covering what an independent GRSI volunteer reproduces first, DOI-issuing archives, evaluator-proof documentation for visualization code and data, and how VIS reproducibility differs from ACM-style artifact badges.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill vis-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Vis Artifact Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-vis-artifact-evaluation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: vis-artifact-evaluation
description: Use when packaging an IEEE VIS artifact for the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative (GRSI) / TVCG Replicability Stamp and the IEEE VIS Open Practices program, covering what an independent GRSI volunteer reproduces first, DOI-issuing archives, evaluator-proof documentation for visualization code and data, and how VIS reproducibility differs from ACM-style artifact badges.
---
# VIS Artifact Evaluation
Use this for the reproducibility track. IEEE VIS does not use ACM-style artifact badges; its
recognition is the **Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative (GRSI)** — issued to TVCG papers as the
**TVCG Replicability Stamp** — plus the conference's **Open Practices** program. Two things to
internalize: the stamp is earned by an **independent volunteer actually reproducing your results**
from a public archive, and the review artifact (anonymized, for your paper's reviewers) is not the
same deliverable as the stamp artifact (de-anonymized, permanently archived).
## What GRSI certifies (verify the current process)
| Mechanism | What it certifies | What earns it |
|---|---|---|
| TVCG Replicability Stamp (GRSI) | An independent volunteer reproduced the paper's results from your code/data | A public repository + a single documented build/run path that regenerates the key figures/results |
| Open Practices disclosures | Transparent reporting of open code, data, preprints, preregistration | Filling the camera-ready Open Practices form honestly and posting the materials |
Unlike a graded badge ladder, the stamp is **binary**: an evaluator either reproduces your results
or does not. The failure mode is therefore always "it did not build/run on their machine," never
"the idea was weak" — design for a stranger's clean environment.
## What a GRSI volunteer opens first
| Claim type | First thing reproduced | Common failure caught |
|---|---|---|
| A visualization technique/algorithm | The build + a script that regenerates a key figure | Undocumented deps; only-builds-on-authors'-GPU |
| A system/tool | The install and a demo on bundled sample data | Requires a private server, API key, or paid license |
| A perceptual/empirical study | The analysis scripts that turn raw responses into the paper's stats | Numbers in the PDF no script reproduces; raw data missing |
| A rendering result | The pipeline + reference images with a comparison | Non-deterministic output with no tolerance/seed documented |
Assume the evaluator gives your package a bounded time budget on a clean machine. The first build
and the first regenerated figure must succeed.
## Packaging plan
```text
[Container] ship a Dockerfile or a pinned environment (requirements/lockfile, exact toolchain
versions); avoid "install these 40 things by hand" and undocumented GPU/driver needs
[README] one-screen orientation: what it is, how to build, how to run the demo, how to
regenerate each figure/result, expected runtime and outputs
[Mapping] an explicit table: paper figure/result -> script -> expected output
[Data] the actual dataset or stimuli (or documented access), not just a pointer
[Determinism] seeds, tolerances, and reference images for anything stochastic or GPU-dependent
[License] an OSI-approved license so others can reuse the visualization code
[Archive] deposit in a DOI-issuing repository (OSF, Zenodo, Software Heritage) for permanence
```
## Anonymized review artifact vs. stamp artifact
- **At submission (if double-blind):** the supplemental code/data/video is anonymized for the
paper's reviewers — no owner strings, lab names, institutional URLs, or identity-revealing demo
links, and no live repository that discloses authors.
- **After acceptance:** replace anonymized placeholders with the public, licensed, DOI-issuing
archive; this is the version a GRSI volunteer reproduces and the camera-ready cites.
## Worked vignette: stamping a technique + system paper
A paper contributes a new graph-layout technique and an interactive system. To target the stamp:
ship a Docker image with the layout code pre-built; a `run_demo.sh` that lays out a small bundled
graph and writes the teaser figure in under a minute; a `reproduce/` directory whose scripts
regenerate each quantitative figure from logged benchmark data; a figure-to-script mapping in the
README; the benchmark graphs themselves with provenance; and an MIT/BSD license. State honestly
which figures are turnkey and which need the full (slow) benchmark run.
## Calibration
- The GRSI review is **independent of and after** camera-ready; do not conflate them, and do not
block the paper on the stamp result.
- The exact GRSI submission process, the Open Practices requirements, and whether any element is
mandatory vary by cycle — confirm on the current Open Practices page and the GRSI site.
## Output format
```text
[Target recognition] TVCG Replicability Stamp / Open Practices disclosures
[Artifact role] anonymized review artifact / public stamp artifact
[Contents] <code/data/stimuli/determinism aids/license>
[Clean-machine test] does build + demo + one regenerated figure succeed? yes/no
[Figure mapping] <figure/result -> script -> expected output present? yes/no>
[Fixes before archiving] <ordered list>
```
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!