← all publishers

brycewang-stanford

@brycewang-stanford source repo

Report this profile Claim this profile

• 5.3k skills
• 0 followers
• 1k repo stars
• 2 weeks ago last updated

1. ▌
   Mobisys Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing MobiSys supplementary material — appendices, extra device sweeps, protocol details, demo video and media, and anonymized artifacts under the 12-page-body, double-blind, and reviewer-discretion constraints, including how to split a mobile-systems paper between body, references-and-appendix overflow, and HotCRP fields.
   1k repo stars
2. ▌
   Mobisys Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

   Use when revising a MobiSys paper for a mobile-systems first page, the pain → system-design → on-device-evidence arc, 12-page double-column compression, double-blind wording, and claims disciplined by measured latency, energy, memory, and thermal budgets rather than superlatives, so the draft survives systems-and-services reviewers.
   1k repo stars
3. ▌
   Ndss Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing an NDSS artifact for evaluation after conditional acceptance — targeting the Available, Functional, and Reproduced badges, packaging attacks and measurements responsibly, writing the 2-page artifact appendix, and handling dangerous or embargoed material.
   1k repo stars
4. ▌
   Neurips Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding what NeurIPS material belongs in the main PDF body, the references, text appendices, the mandatory Paper Checklist, the separate code/data ZIP, or an external public artifact, and how to keep every supplemental component anonymous under double-blind review.
   1k repo stars
5. ▌
   Neurips Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

   Use when rewriting a machine-learning paper for NeurIPS-style contribution framing, calibrated claims, contribution-type alignment, limitations, broader-impact prose, and language that pre-fills the mandatory NeurIPS Paper Checklist, for either the main track or the Datasets & Benchmarks track.
   1k repo stars
6. ▌
   Nsdi Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing an accepted NSDI paper's artifact for badge evaluation — packaging code, traces, and testbed recipes for the AEC, choosing which badges to pursue, meeting Zenodo-style permanence expectations, and timing public release to stay eligible for the Community Award.
   1k repo stars
7. ▌
   Oopsla Author Response · brycewang-stanford

   Use when writing an OOPSLA author response inside the short per-round window — reading reviews through the four-outcome lens (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject), steering borderline papers toward a revision outcome instead of rejection, and committing only to changes deliverable within the round's revision mechanics.
   1k repo stars
8. ▌
   Oopsla Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

   Use when hardening an OOPSLA paper's empirical claims to the SIGPLAN Empirical Evaluation Guidelines — managed-runtime measurement discipline, warmup and variance reporting, corpus and benchmark provenance, environment pinning, and a Data-Availability Statement that the eventual artifact can actually honor.
   1k repo stars
9. ▌
   Osdi Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing an OSDI artifact for sysartifacts-run evaluation — the post-acceptance timeline, the 2026 narrowing to a single Artifacts Available badge, Zenodo-grade permanent archiving, the AE-committee runbook, and the two-page Artifact Appendix that documents the result.
   1k repo stars
10. ▌
    Percom Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an IEEE PerCom rebuttal after being invited following the initial reviews, covering the bounded single-round reply that answers explicit reviewer questions, corrects misreadings, points to evidence already in the paper without promising new experiments, and preserves double-blindness.
    1k repo stars
11. ▌
    Percom Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening IEEE PerCom reproducibility and open-data evidence for human-subjects sensing, covering the dataset-availability statement, de-identified datasets with IRB/consent handling, sensing provenance (devices, sampling, labeling), cross-subject reproducibility, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between what the paper says and what the dataset contains.
    1k repo stars
12. ▌
    Percom Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a pervasive-computing project belongs at IEEE PerCom or should be routed to ACM UbiComp/IMWUT, MobiCom, MobiSys, SenSys, or IPSN, and when distinguishing PerCom's human-centric ubicomp focus from networked-sensor-systems venues by contribution shape, the human-centricity test, and the IEEE-conference vs. IMWUT-journal model.
    1k repo stars
13. ▌
    Pldi Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging a PLDI artifact for the post-acceptance evaluation — earning the Functional, Reusable, and Available badges, archiving a DOI-stamped snapshot on Zenodo, containerizing toolchains and benchmark suites, and writing a README an evaluator can follow in a fresh VM.
    1k repo stars
14. ▌
    Pnasnexus Abstract · brycewang-stanford

    Use to write the PNAS Nexus abstract — a single self-contained paragraph of up to 250 words, with no headings, quantified and accessible to a broad scientific audience. Distinguishes the abstract (what/how/found, for scientists) from the 50–120-word Significance Statement (why-it-matters, for everyone). Late-stage polish.
    1k repo stars
15. ▌
    Pnasnexus Citation · brycewang-stanford

    Use to get PNAS Nexus references right — note that PNAS Nexus accepts references in any readable style at submission (unlike flagship PNAS's strict numbered-by-appearance), so the job is internal consistency, completeness, resolvable in-text citations, and the [dataset] tag for data/software. Prepare a single consistent (preferably numbered) style for production; confirm the final style on acceptance.
    1k repo stars
16. ▌
    Pnasnexus Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use after PNAS Nexus reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Covers the case where reviews were carried over from a PNAS transfer. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.
    1k repo stars
17. ▌
    Pnasnexus Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding which pnasnexus-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from scope/significance test through reviewer rebuttal for PNAS Nexus (the fully open-access sibling journal of PNAS, published by Oxford University Press for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
    1k repo stars
18. ▌
    Popl Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging a POPL artifact — above all a mechanized proof development in Rocq/Coq, Lean, Agda, or Isabelle — for the post-conditional-acceptance evaluation, satisfying the no-admit/no-sorry completeness rule, mapping paper theorems to proof files, pinning toolchains, and earning the Functional, Reusable, and Available badges.
    1k repo stars
19. ▌
    Recsys Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an ACM RecSys rebuttal during the author-response window, covering the short narrative RecSys allows, anonymity, anchoring answers to submitted evidence and the anonymous repository, the recurring objections about untuned baselines, leakage, and offline-online gaps, and Senior-PC-focused clarification.
    1k repo stars
20. ▌
    Recsys Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening the reproducibility of an ACM RecSys paper or preparing a RecSys Reproducibility Track submission — pinning dataset versions and splits, tuning baselines under an equal budget, reporting seeds and variance, avoiding sampled-metric distortion, and structuring a reproduction study with honest divergence analysis.
    1k repo stars
21. ▌
    Recsys Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ACM RecSys fit, routing among RecSys, SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, UAI, CHI, and general ML venues, identifying whether the core contribution is genuinely about recommendation, and choosing the right RecSys track before writing begins.
    1k repo stars
22. ▌
    Rt Ladder Ev · brycewang-stanford

    Use when choosing between submission sequences rather than between single venues — "should I try the top journal first, or start one rung down?", or when a tenure/job-market clock makes time-to-print the binding constraint. Costs a resubmission ladder in months and in probability of ever placing, using each venue's own turnaround and desk-reject figures. Follows rt-journal-match, which produces the ladder this one prices.
    1k repo stars
23. ▌
    Sensys Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing a SenSys Response to Reviewers for a resubmission — treating the reviews as a required-changes contract, mapping each blocking concern to a specific change and the new measurement that closes it, staging the energy and testbed experiments a systems revision demands, and keeping the response anonymous and in the CFP's form.
    1k repo stars
24. ▌
    Sensys Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when making a SenSys result reproducible across a different testbed — capturing energy-measurement method, hardware and firmware provenance, sensor ground-truth protocol, and deployment conditions while the testbed is still live, and deciding early which traces and firmware can legally and safely ship.
    1k repo stars
25. ▌
    Sensys Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at SenSys after the 2026 merger absorbed IPSN and IoTDI — testing whether the contribution is a built, measured sensing/embedded/IoT/on-device-AI system rather than a pure algorithm, a mobile-networking mechanism, or an offline ML result, and routing misfits to MobiCom, MobiSys, or an ML/DSP venue.
    1k repo stars
26. ▌
    Sigcomm Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing the material around an ACM SIGCOMM paper — deciding what lives in the 12-page body versus references versus optional appendices, keeping the main paper self-contained, anticipating the shepherd's appendix-necessity approval, and placing extended measurements and proofs outside the cap without hiding load-bearing content.
    1k repo stars
27. ▌
    Sigcomm Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ACM SIGCOMM paper for its house style — leading with measured operational pain, stating a design principle rather than a behavior, pairing every claim with testbed/trace/deployment evidence, reporting tails instead of superlatives, and fitting the argument into 12 figure-inclusive pages while keeping blinding clean.
    1k repo stars
28. ▌
    Siggraph Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a SIGGRAPH / TOG paper, covering head-to-head comparisons against the strongest prior method, ablations, performance/timing reporting with hardware, image/geometry quality metrics, perceptual and user studies, and matching the evidence to the graphics claim shape.
    1k repo stars
29. ▌
    Sigmod Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing SIGMOD author feedback during a PACMMOD round or the revision letter after a major/minor-revision verdict, covering the mid-round feedback window, the four-page letter limit, per-reviewer change highlighting, the extra content page, and anonymity that must hold through resubmission.
    1k repo stars
30. ▌
    Sigmod Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility story of a SIGMOD submission, covering PACMMOD's expectation that code, data, scripts, and notebooks be shared, experiment provenance from config to figure, dataset and workload disclosure, variance reporting for systems numbers, and alignment with later ARI badging.
    1k repo stars
31. ▌
    Sigmod Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when judging whether a project belongs at SIGMOD's research track, comparing it against PVLDB's rolling model, ICDE, PODS, KDD, CIDR, and TODS, weighing the industrial track for deployment papers, and testing whether the contribution is genuinely a data-management result rather than an application that touches data.
    1k repo stars
32. ▌
    Socc Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging an ACM SoCC artifact for the ACM Artifact Review and Badging scheme (Artifacts Available, Evaluated Functional and Reusable, Results Reproduced), covering what a cloud-systems evaluator checks first, reproducing tail-latency and cost results on a testbed, DOI-issuing archives, and the fact that whether SoCC runs a dedicated artifact-evaluation track for a given edition must be verified.
    1k repo stars
33. ▌
    Soda Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding how code, computations, or data attach to a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper — SODA itself runs no artifact track, so this skill covers computer-assisted proof evidence, implementation companions, and when to route the artifact to co-located ALENEX's formal artifact evaluation instead.
    1k repo stars
34. ▌
    Sosp Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing a SOSP artifact for the post-acceptance evaluation run by the sysartifacts community, registering within days of notification, packaging for the cooperative review process, and targeting the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, and Artifacts Evaluated Reusable.
    1k repo stars
35. ▌
    Stoc Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what evidence objects a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper must ship, given that STOC runs no artifact-evaluation track — the durable artifact is the public full version on arXiv/ECCC, plus verifiable certificates whenever a proof leans on computation, and optional mechanization.
    1k repo stars
36. ▌
    Uist Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging the artifacts behind a UIST paper — code, toolkits, hardware design files, and datasets — first as anonymous review-time evidence that the system is real, then as a public release engineered for reuse, in a venue with no formal badge committee doing the checking for you.
    1k repo stars
37. ▌
    Vldb Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing a PVLDB artifact for the pVLDB Reproducibility Evaluation or the ACM availability badge, covering the mandatory participation rule for EA&B papers, the four artifact surfaces evaluators rebuild, packaging for a rerun by strangers, and positioning for the Best Reproducible Paper Award at VLDB.
    1k repo stars
38. ▌
    Wacv Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging code, data, and models for a WACV paper, covering the anonymous review artifact versus the public post-acceptance release, reproducing constraint-based applications claims (latency, power, robustness) not just accuracy, dataset licensing and release, and keeping the artifact in sync across the two-round Revise-and-Resubmit lap.
    1k repo stars
39. ▌
    Wsdm Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging code, data, and models as evidence for a WSDM paper - anonymous repositories cited in the PDF, the proprietary-log dilemma of web-scale research, public-benchmark substitution tiers, WSDM Cup datasets, and what credible artifact release looks like at a venue without a formal badge process.
    1k repo stars
40. ▌
    Ylj Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use as the entry point for any The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) piece. Routes to the right YLJ sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and which track (Article, Essay, Feature, student Note/Comment, or Forum) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
41. ▌
    Aistats Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or planning around AISTATS peer review, OpenReview review release, author-reviewer discussion, reviewer volunteer expectations, reviewer confidentiality, decision criteria, meta-review dynamics, the statistician-heavy reviewer pool, and PMLR proceedings outcomes.
    1k repo stars
42. ▌
    Crim Data Analysis · brycewang-stanford

    Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript so it survives expert review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and methods appropriate to crime counts, longitudinal panels, trajectory models, and recidivism survival. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
    1k repo stars
43. ▌
    Crim Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or polishing a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript so it reads for an interdisciplinary criminology audience, follows the journal's APA-based style, and uses bias-free, person-first language for justice-involved populations. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
    1k repo stars
44. ▌
    CI Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Critical Inquiry (CI) via Editorial Manager — format selection, the 9,500-word limit (including discursive notes and all bibliographical information), Microsoft Word manuscript, Chicago (17th ed.) footnotes with no works-cited list, separate 300 ppi JPEG/TIFF images with author-secured permissions, and the no-simultaneous-submission rule. Final checks; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
45. ▌
    Demog Data Analysis · brycewang-stanford

    Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review — correct rate construction, honest uncertainty, and demographic methods done right (life tables, decomposition, event history, age-period-cohort). Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
    1k repo stars
46. ▌
    Demog Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or polishing a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript so it reads for population scientists across components, follows the journal's house style (loosely APA), and fits the limits (Research Articles <= 8,000 words main text; Notes <= 4,000; Commentaries <= 2,000; abstract <= 200 words; up to 5 keywords; 3-5 highlights). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
    1k repo stars
47. ▌
    Ecta Theory Model · brycewang-stanford

    Use when the central theorem of an Econometrica manuscript must be stated cleanly and proven completely — assumptions, generality, and proof strategy. Builds and audits the theorem-and-proof core; it does not derive the identification/asymptotic conditions (use ecta-identification) or run simulations (use ecta-robustness).
    1k repo stars
48. ▌
    Eurosys Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how EuroSys decides papers — the two independent yearly rounds feeding one April conference, HotCRP double-blind reviewing, the accept/revise/reject outcome triple, the same-season resubmission ban after rejection, and community structures like the Shadow PC that shape who reviews.
    1k repo stars
49. ▌
    Humrel Methods · brycewang-stanford

    Use when choosing and justifying the research design for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — qualitative/ethnographic, critical, quantitative, or mixed — and setting the rigor bar. Designs the study; it does not run the analysis (see humrel-data-analysis).
    1k repo stars
50. ▌
    Ieeesp Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting the IEEE S&P (Oakland) rebuttal for second-round papers or the response plan for a Revise decision, including triaging reviews under the ~5-day window, answering adaptive-attack and threat-model objections, handling ethics questions with documentation, and writing against the Revise expectations summary.
    1k repo stars
51. ▌
    Ieeesp Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility of an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper's evidence before submission, including environment pinning for exploits and side channels, seed and trial reporting for probabilistic attacks, measurement snapshotting of live systems, and honest availability statements under ethical release limits.
    1k repo stars
52. ▌
    Ieeesp Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a security or privacy project belongs at IEEE S&P (Oakland), including the threat-model test, SoK fit, routing among USENIX Security, CCS, NDSS, PETS, and CRYPTO, and whether the one-year resubmission embargo or the 40% overlap rule constrains the plan.
    1k repo stars
53. ▌
    Infocom Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an IEEE INFOCOM submission is evaluated, covering the large-scale double-blind pipeline, automated paper-reviewer assignment, the two-tier TPC and early-reject phase, the (traditional) absence of an author rebuttal, TPC discussion, and how INFOCOM's process differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI rebuttal-driven reviewing.
    1k repo stars
54. ▌
    Jama Peer Review Revision · brycewang-stanford

    Use when responding to JAMA editor and reviewer comments after a revise decision, including the statistical-review queries. Structures the point-by-point response and revision; it does NOT fabricate new analyses or overstate changes.
    1k repo stars
55. ▌
    Jf Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting the response to a The Journal of Finance (JF) revise-and-resubmit (or addressing a reject-with-comments). Structures the response letter and revision plan after the manuscript is revised.
    1k repo stars
56. ▌
    Jf Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding which jf-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for The Journal of Finance (JF). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
    1k repo stars
57. ▌
    Mksc Methods · brycewang-stanford

    Use when the empirical/analytical approach is the bottleneck for a Marketing Science manuscript — choosing among structural econometrics, analytical modeling, and model-disciplined causal/ML methods, and making the model estimable and identified. Designs the approach; it does not execute the estimation and counterfactuals (mksc-data-analysis).
    1k repo stars
58. ▌
    Mobicom Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about where a MobiCom paper sits in the two-round review process — the early-reject cut after round one, the released reviews and rebuttal window after round two, the accept / one-shot revision / reject outcome space, reviewer continuity across a revision, and how the rolling-deadline structure shapes what to do next.
    1k repo stars
59. ▌
    Mobisys Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or planning around MobiSys peer review — the two-round process with an early-reject cut after round 1, the round-2 rebuttal window, double-blind HotCRP mechanics, the systems-and-services reviewer pool, and decision criteria for on-device claims, so response strategy fits how MobiSys decides.
    1k repo stars
60. ▌
    Molcell Figures · brycewang-stanford

    Use to finalize Molecular Cell display items — column-width sizing, minimum fonts, RGB, show-the-data with defined error bars/n/replicate type, gel/blot and structural-figure integrity, colorblind-safe palettes, multi-panel discipline, and stand-alone legends built for a mechanism proof.
    1k repo stars
61. ▌
    Molcell Framing · brycewang-stanford

    Use to lock the single-mechanism arc before drafting — converts a set of correct experiments into one Molecular Cell story that runs molecular question → the mechanism → physiological consequence, not a catalog of techniques.
    1k repo stars
62. ▌
    Molcell Summary · brycewang-stanford

    Use to write Molecular Cell's Summary — a single unstructured paragraph (~150 words; re-check on the official site) that conveys the molecular question, the mechanism, and its physiological consequence, named and quantified for a molecular-biology readership. Late-stage polish.
    1k repo stars
63. ▌
    Molcell Writing · brycewang-stanford

    Use to structure a Molecular Cell Article and hold its length — Summary, Introduction, Results, Discussion, STAR Methods, figure legends, references — with the ~7,000-word main-text and ~7-display-item budgets, and Results subheadings that carry the single-mechanism argument.
    1k repo stars
64. ▌
    Ngeo Figures · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing display items for a Nature Geoscience manuscript, where 4-6 figures/tables must carry the Earth-system advance and its uncertainty for a broad readership. Designs figure strategy; does not run the analysis or write prose.
    1k repo stars
65. ▌
    Ngeo Methods · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the online Methods section of a Nature Geoscience manuscript so every quantitative Earth-science claim is grounded in data, model diagnostics, and quantified uncertainty. Structures Methods and the reproducibility layer; does not design figures or frame the headline result.
    1k repo stars
66. ▌
    Neurips Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or diagnosing the NeurIPS main-track review process, including OpenReview, reviewer and AC roles, contribution-type review, ethics flags, reciprocal reviewing, discussion, and LLM-review policy.
    1k repo stars
67. ▌
    Pmla Argument Development · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the argument of a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay into a significant contribution to literary and language studies. PMLA rewards a clear, consequential claim whose implications are drawn out — not a description or a reading without stakes. Structures the argument; it does not perform the close reading or invent evidence.
    1k repo stars
68. ▌
    Respol Methods · brycewang-stanford

    Use when research design, identification, or measurement is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — choosing and defending a method (patent/bibliometric, causal policy evaluation, survey, case study, or mixed) appropriate to an innovation-studies claim. Sets the design; it does not execute the estimation/coding (respol-data-analysis).
    1k repo stars
69. ▌
    Rof Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting a Review of Finance response letter and revision plan after an R&R, especially under the two-round philosophy, top-three-finance standards, code/data conditions, and page-cap constraints.
    1k repo stars
70. ▌
    Rof Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding which rof-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Review of Finance (RoF) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
    1k repo stars
71. ▌
    Sigcomm Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or planning around ACM SIGCOMM peer review — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, the early-reject cut for consensus rejections, the rebuttal for discussion-phase papers, the shepherd-run one-shot revision that ends in accept or reject only, shepherding of accepted papers, and how the outcome space shapes author strategy.
    1k repo stars
72. ▌
    Siggraph Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing the final version of a conditionally accepted SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Paper for publication in ACM Transactions on Graphics, covering the second-stage committee verification, TOG journal metadata and DOI, ACM rights and CCS concepts, final results video and representative image, and permanent code/data links.
    1k repo stars
73. ▌
    Siggraph Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or auditing the related-work positioning of a SIGGRAPH / TOG paper, covering the computer-graphics literature lanes (rendering, geometry, animation, simulation, imaging, fabrication, learning-for-graphics), capability-delta positioning against the strongest prior method, and correct attribution across SIGGRAPH, SIGGRAPH Asia, TOG, EG/CGF, and sibling venues.
    1k repo stars
74. ▌
    Sigmetrics Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning an ACM SIGMETRICS project timeline across the three rolling deadlines (summer/fall/winter), from venue fit through abstract registration, submission, shepherding, the one-shot revision round, POMACS publication, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a performance-evaluation paper and honest handling of the rolling-deadline cadence and the 12-month resubmission bar.
    1k repo stars
75. ▌
    Sf Data Analysis · brycewang-stanford

    Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Social Forces (SF) manuscript so it survives expert, double-anonymized review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, demographic, network, or computational work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
    1k repo stars
76. ▌
    Sf Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or polishing a Social Forces (SF) manuscript so it reads for a general social-science audience, follows Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.) author-date, and fits the reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
    1k repo stars
77. ▌
    Aamas Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-run the interaction claims.
    1k repo stars
78. ▌
    Ccs Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging ACM CCS artifacts for the artifact-evaluation committee and the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, Artifacts Evaluated Reusable, and Results Reproduced — covering what security evaluators inspect, how to make attacks and defenses turnkey, and how to justify withheld artifacts.
    1k repo stars
79. ▌
    Aistats Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting AISTATS author responses or author-reviewer discussion replies under OpenReview, covering text-only discussion, no-link guidance, no revised-paper upload, anonymity requirements, statistician-reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused clarification strategy for theory-plus-experiments papers.
    1k repo stars
80. ▌
    Aistats Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening AISTATS reproducibility evidence, including the official reproducibility checklist, statistical assumptions, proofs, datasets, hyperparameters, random seeds, compute, uncertainty estimates, baselines, code/data release statements, and checklist-to-claim consistency audits.
    1k repo stars
81. ▌
    Aistats Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AISTATS fit, comparing AISTATS with NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, UAI, COLT, JMLR, statistics journals, or application venues, identifying the statistical primitive of the contribution, and sharpening the AI-statistics framing before writing begins.
    1k repo stars
82. ▌
    Brain · brycewang-stanford

    Use when targeting Brain or deciding whether a clinical-neurology or translational-neuroscience study fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the mechanistic-depth-with-clinical-relevance evidence bar, reporting-guideline and registration requirements, Guarantors of Brain/OUP house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. Venue-fit aid only, not clinical advice.
    1k repo stars
83. ▌
    Crim Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use to understand how Criminology (ASC / Wiley) evaluates a manuscript — blinded/anonymized peer review, editorial screening, the typical reject / major-revision / minor-revision / accept outcomes, and what expert reviewers weigh in this interdisciplinary, theory-forward field. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
    1k repo stars
84. ▌
    Crim Tables Figures · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building tables and figures for a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and communicate crime patterns clearly — age-crime curves, trajectory-group plots, recidivism survival curves, hot-spot maps, and effect plots. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.
    1k repo stars
85. ▌
    Demog Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use to understand how Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review, pre-review/desk screening by the Editor or a Deputy Editor, the role of topic-area Deputy Editors, and the grounds for desk rejection (inappropriate fit or unlikely to receive favorable reviews). Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
    1k repo stars
86. ▌
    Demog Tables Figures · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building tables and figures for a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and within the journal's limits (Research Articles up to ~8 tables and figures; Research Notes up to 4). Covers distinctive demographic graphics — population pyramids, Lexis surfaces, survival curves, age schedules. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.
    1k repo stars
87. ▌
    Ecta Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use as a late-stage polish for an Econometrica manuscript to enforce the terse, formal, theorem-numbered house style and clean mathematical exposition. Polishes prose and notation; it does not fix the proof (use ecta-theory-model) or the simulations (use ecta-robustness).
    1k repo stars
88. ▌
    Ecopol Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when responding to Economic Policy (EP) discussant comments and the panel debate — revising the paper for the camera-ready version that publishes alongside those comments. Plans the post-panel response; it does not invent evidence or citations.
    1k repo stars
89. ▌
    Ecopol Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding which ecopol-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic pitch through post-panel revision for an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
    1k repo stars
90. ▌
    Emnlp Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging the artifacts of an EMNLP paper — datasets, annotation guidelines, prompts, evaluation code, and model outputs — as anonymous review-time evidence or public post-acceptance releases, with licensing, data statements, and the inspection order NLP reviewers actually follow.
    1k repo stars
91. ▌
    Mind · brycewang-stanford

    Use when targeting Mind or deciding whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as a leading generalist journal in the analytic/UK tradition, the argument-rigor and originality bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style (full-length articles plus critical notices) and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
    1k repo stars
92. ▌
    Nous · brycewang-stanford

    Use when targeting Noûs or deciding whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as one of the big-three generalist venues, the argument-rigor and originality bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
    1k repo stars
93. ▌
    Pmla · brycewang-stanford

    Use when targeting PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) or deciding whether a literary- or language-studies manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's broad-readership fit, the field-defining argument bar, close-reading and scholarly-engagement expectations, MLA house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
    1k repo stars
94. ▌
    Eurosys Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing a EuroSys rebuttal or managing a one-shot revision — reading reviews against the three possible outcomes (accept, revise, reject), answering systems reviewers' measurement and design objections, and turning a revision offer's condition list into a resubmission plan for the next EuroSys deadline.
    1k repo stars
95. ▌
    Eurosys Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility story of a EuroSys paper — recording hardware and software provenance for every number, taming performance variance with repeated runs and dispersion reporting, versioning workloads and traces, and writing an availability statement that survives both double-blind review and the sysartifacts AEC.
    1k repo stars
96. ▌
    Eurosys Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a systems project belongs at EuroSys — the ACM SIGOPS-Europe flagship spanning OS, distributed systems, storage, cloud, virtualization, security, and ML systems — or routes better to SOSP, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, ATC, FAST, or SoCC, and how the April slot and dual deadlines affect that call.
    1k repo stars
97. ▌
    Facct Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing the accountability artifacts that accompany an ACM FAccT paper — datasheets for datasets, model cards, data statements, audit and impact-assessment documentation, and released code/data — since FAccT's culture centers documentation and accountability infrastructure rather than a formal ACM artifact-badging track; covers what makes each genre credible, anonymized-review versus public-release versions, and consistency with the paper's harm claims.
    1k repo stars
98. ▌
    Hlr Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when starting or navigating any Harvard Law Review (HLR) article, essay, or book review and you need the right next sub-skill. Routes by lifecycle stage and the distinctive student-edited, multi-submit/expedite law-review process. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
99. ▌
    Humrel Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting the response to a Human Relations (HR) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments in HR's developmental, theory-first culture. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first).
    1k repo stars
100. ▌
     Humrel Workflow · brycewang-stanford

     Use when deciding which humrel-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a Human Relations (HR) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
     1k repo stars