Use when auditing an ICLR main-conference submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reciprocal reviewing, LLM-use disclosure, dual-submission policy, supplementary material, and desk-reject risk.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill iclr-submission --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Iclr Submission?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-iclr-submission)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: iclr-submission
description: "Use when auditing an ICLR main-conference submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reciprocal reviewing, LLM-use disclosure, dual-submission policy, supplementary material, and desk-reject risk."
category: general-purpose
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "ICLR-Skills/skills/iclr-submission/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/ICLR-Skills/skills/iclr-submission/SKILL.md
---
# ICLR Submission
Use this for an ICLR main-conference submission audit. Reopen the current CFP, Author Guide,
OpenReview submission form, template, Code of Ethics, Code of Conduct, and LLM policy before giving
deadline-ready advice.
## Submission audit
- Confirm the target is the ICLR main conference, not a workshop, Tiny Paper, blog, affinity event,
or later publication track.
- Check that all authors have complete OpenReview profiles and that the author list follows the
current freeze/change windows.
- Verify that the abstract is substantive and non-duplicative before the abstract deadline; do not
rely on a placeholder.
- Confirm use of the current ICLR LaTeX template and current page-limit rules. In 2026, submissions
used 9 pages of main text, references outside the limit, and appendices after references.
- Inspect anonymity in the PDF, appendices, supplementary ZIP, code, data, demos, links, repository
metadata, comments, acknowledgments, and file names.
- Confirm reciprocal-reviewing compliance for the author team unless the current cycle grants an
explicit exemption.
- Complete any LLM-use disclosure truthfully. Hidden prompt injection, hallucinated citations, or
undisclosed LLM-written scientific content can become ethics issues.
## Desk-reject and integrity risks
- Late or missing abstract/full paper.
- New author added after the author-list deadline.
- Template manipulation, over-limit main text, or missing required fields.
- Non-anonymous public links, repository ownership, analytics, demo login, or organization slug.
- Dual submission to another archival venue that violates current ICLR policy.
- Unclear LLM disclosure or review-manipulation text.
- Reciprocal-reviewing noncompliance.
## Desk-reject triage table
ICLR enforcement is strict and the consequences are public: even a withdrawn submission leaves a
visible OpenReview trace. Triage the highest-probability rejections first.
| Risk | Quick test | Fix before deadline |
| --- | --- | --- |
| De-anonymization | Grep PDF and ZIP for names, remotes, buckets | Strip metadata, neutralize links |
| Over-limit main text | Count pages against the current rule | Move material after references |
| Author-list change | Check the freeze window in the CFP | Finalize authors before the cutoff |
| Dual submission | Confirm no archival overlap | Withdraw or rescope the other venue |
| LLM disclosure | Confirm the form field is truthful | Disclose; remove hallucinated citations |
## Worked vignette
A team submits an LLM fine-tuning paper whose anonymized repo link points to a GitHub org naming the
lab, with a caption thanking a named cluster. Both leak identity. The fix: replace the link with an
anonymized supplement ZIP, remove the acknowledgment until camera-ready, re-grep the PDF for the
cluster name, and confirm all authors completed OpenReview profiles before the freeze.
## Reviewer-pushback patterns
- "Looks like a workshop paper." Reframe for the main track or route elsewhere.
- "Possible dual submission." Document why the other version is non-archival under current policy.
## Output format
```text
[ICLR readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[OpenReview state] profiles / abstract / paper / supplement / reviewer nomination
[Blocking risks] <anonymity/page-limit/dual-submission/LLM/reciprocal-reviewing>
[Fix order] <highest-impact fixes before deadline>
[Current-cycle pages to reopen] <CFP, Author Guide, OpenReview group, template, LLM policy>
```
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ICLR-Skills/skills/iclr-submission/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!