# Rss Supplementary > Use when assembling RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems) supplementary material under the separate one-week-later deadline — deciding what leaves the self-contained main PDF, cutting robot video that functions as evidence rather than promotion, anonymizing footage and archives, and packaging appendices and trial logs. - Skill: `thedixitjain/rss-supplementary` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/rss-supplementary` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/rss-supplementary/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/rss-supplementary --- # RSS Supplementary Assemble the supplement as the paper's evidence annex. RSS 2026 gave it its own deadline (February 6, one week after the paper, AoE — verified 2026-07-08) and its own constraint: the CFP requires the main PDF to be self-contained, so the supplement may deepen belief but must never be *required* for it. ## The division of labor | Content | Main PDF | Supplement | |---|---|---| | Claim, protocol summary, headline results, failure distribution | ✔ | | | Full proofs / derivations | sketch | ✔ complete | | Per-trial logs and extended tables | totals | ✔ raw | | Robot footage | referenced | ✔ files | | Code/data archive | availability sentence | ✔ archive | | Anything a reviewer needs to *believe* the claim | ✔ always | never alone | Litmus test per item: "if no reviewer opens the supplement, does the paper still stand?" The 2026 rules make opening it discretionary, so plan for the case where nobody does. ## Robot video as evidence, not trailer The venue's culture reads supplementary video the way it reads tables — so cut it like data, not like a launch video: 1. **Continuous takes for headline behaviors.** An uncut clip at stated real-time speed is the video equivalent of a raw log. Label any speed change on-screen; an unlabeled 4x cut reads as concealment once noticed. 2. **Show the failure modes.** Two or three representative failures, labeled by category, matched to the paper's failure table. This single choice most separates evidence-video from promo-video. 3. **Cover the conditions.** A clip per experimental condition beats a montage of the best condition; reviewers map video to the experiment matrix. 4. **No music, no title animations, no lab branding** — the last is an anonymity requirement, not just taste. ## Anonymization for physical media Footage leaks identity through channels prose never has: - Frame contents: faces, badges, lab signage, posters, distinctive robot liveries, window views. Crop, mask, or reshoot. - File metadata: camera serials, GPS tags, creator fields in video containers, and archive paths embedding usernames — strip before packaging. - Voice-over accents and names in ambient audio — prefer captions or replace audio. ## Archive hygiene - One top-level README orienting a reviewer in under a minute: contents map, entry command, expected runtime. - Include the trial ledger and analysis scripts (`rss-reproducibility`); exclude caches, checkpoints beyond the necessary, and any credential. - Test the archive on a machine that has never seen the project; broken relative paths are the most common silent failure. - Remember the ordering gift: the paper freezes first. The supplement week is for packaging existing evidence — footage shot after January 30 supports nothing the reviewers are judging. ## Video storyboard template Draft the cut on paper before opening an editor: ```text 00:00-00:10 task + claim, one caption line (no narration needed) 00:10-01:10 headline behavior: ONE continuous take, "1x speed" on screen 01:10-01:50 one clip per experimental condition, captioned with condition ID 01:50-02:20 failure gallery: 2-3 labeled failures matching Table categories 02:20-02:40 transfer/perturbation condition, uncut 02:40-end (optional) mechanism visualization tied to a paper figure ``` Every segment maps to something in the PDF; anything that maps to nothing is promotion and gets cut. ## What actually gets opened | Item | Odds a reviewer opens it | Design consequence | |---|---|---| | Video file | High | Carry condition coverage + failures here | | Appendix PDF | Medium | Mirror main-text section order; standalone-readable | | Code archive README | Medium | One-minute orientation or nothing else gets read | | Raw trial ledger | Low, but decisive when opened | Include; it settles protocol disputes | | Checkpoints / large binaries | Very low | Ship recipes, not bulk | ## Cycle-volatile parameters Size caps, allowed formats, and video length limits for 2026 were not publicly surfaced (待核实); read them off the OpenReview submission form itself rather than assuming any venue's conventions. ## Appendix craft - Mirror the main text's section order and numbering scheme so a reviewer chasing "Appendix C from §4" lands without hunting. - Open each appendix section with one sentence saying which body claim it deepens; orphaned appendix material is invisible under discretionary inspection. - Restate the protocol being extended before extending it — the appendix is read days after the body, if at all. - Full derivations, per-object result breakdowns, sensitivity sweeps, and extra qualitative figures belong here; the body keeps the sketch and the headline. - Do not let the appendix quietly introduce new claims: anything claim-bearing that appears only in the supplement violates the self-containment rule from the reviewer's side of the table. ## Output format ```text [Self-containment test] passes without supplement / fails: [Video cut] conditions covered | failures shown | speeds labeled [Anonymity sweep] frames / metadata / audio -> findings [Archive check] README / entry command / clean-machine test [Form limits] ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `RSS-Skills/skills/rss-supplementary/SKILL.md`