Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill aaai-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Aaai Artifact Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-aaai-artifact-evaluation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: aaai-artifact-evaluation
description: "Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules."
category: data-science-and-ml
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-artifact-evaluation/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-artifact-evaluation/SKILL.md
---
# AAAI Artifact Evaluation
Use this to prepare artifacts that reviewers can use to assess reproducibility. AAAI supplementary
material is part of the submission record; after review starts, do not assume it can be updated.
## Artifact package
- Provide a technical appendix for proofs, algorithms, assumptions, hyperparameters, and extended
experiments.
- Provide code/data ZIPs that reproduce main tables or figures, with a short README, environment,
commands, seeds, expected outputs, and runtime.
- Provide multimedia appendices only when they support the technical claim.
- Remove author names, usernames, paths, repository history, cloud buckets, API keys, and metadata.
- Avoid web pointers in the reviewed submission unless current rules explicitly allow them.
- Include licensing and access notes for datasets, models, and third-party code.
## AAAI-specific discipline
- Treat the supplementary deadline as final.
- Verify ZIP integrity before submission; missing or corrupted files may not be fixable during
rebuttal.
- Make the reproducibility checklist consistent with the artifact package.
- Prepare a post-acceptance public release path but keep review artifacts anonymous.
## What an AAAI reviewer actually opens
AAAI does not run a separate badged artifact-evaluation committee the way some systems venues do;
the same broad-AI reviewer who scores the paper also inspects whatever supplement you attach. That
reviewer may be a planning, knowledge-representation, or constraint-satisfaction specialist rather
than a deep-learning engineer, so the artifact has to be legible without insider tooling. Optimize
for a reviewer who skims, not one who will spend an afternoon configuring a cluster.
| Reviewer action | Passes | Fails |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Opens the ZIP | sane tree, top README | nested archives, 0-byte files |
| Reads appendix | maps to numbered claims | contradicts the paper |
| Tries one command | reproduces one headline number | needs private data or credentials |
| Scans for identity | nothing reveals authors | Git logs or home paths leak |
## Phase-1 artifact red flags
Because clearly-below-bar papers can be cut before author feedback, a supplement that looks thin or
unrunnable is a cheap reason to summary-reject. Avoid these:
- Checklist promises released code, but the ZIP only holds figures and no scripts.
- A "see our repository" pointer to a mutable, deanonymizing URL.
- Multimedia attached for spectacle that carries no technical claim, inflating size with no rigor.
- Datasets shipped with no license note, leaving reuse legality unverifiable.
## Worked vignette
A constraint-solving paper claims a 30% node-expansion reduction. The team ships a large ZIP of raw
solver logs but no driver script. The reproduction path is empty, so artifact status is "risky"; the
fix is a small `run_main.py` that regenerates Table 2 from seeds, a trimmed log sample, and a license
for the benchmark instances. The raw dump moves to the post-acceptance release.
## Output format
```text
[Artifact status] complete / partial / risky / unavailable
[Submitted files] technical appendix / multimedia appendix / code-data ZIP
[Reviewer reproduction path] <commands and expected output>
[Anonymity risks] <metadata, links, paths, logs>
[Missing items] <data, code, seeds, licenses, hardware>
```
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-artifact-evaluation/SKILL.md`
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!