Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when building the theoretical engine for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — mechanisms grounded in social theory, process vs. variance logic, constructs, and boundary conditions. Builds the argument; it does not choose methods or run analysis.
Use when polishing full-manuscript prose and narrative craft on a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — the reflexive, theoretically-engaged HR voice, intro/abstract, and structure within the 13k cap. Polishes the writing; it does not change the theory or analysis.
Use when writing an ICALP (EATCS) Track B rebuttal in response to initial reviews, or when handling a Track A correctness query — correcting reviewer misreadings of a proof, pointing to the exact lemma or step that answers an objection, conceding real gaps honestly, and staying within the lightweight double-blind rules and the short rebuttal window.
Use when shaping the exposition of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper — stating the model before the theorem, putting a legible theorem statement and its improvement over prior bounds on the first page, structuring the 15-page body around the argument while full proofs live in the appendix/full version, and meeting the correctness-and-clarity bar of Track A and Track B referees.
Use when drafting an ICASSP rebuttal or author response to reviews, covering the recently added and short author-response window, the single-blind setting where reviewers already know you, answering signal-processing reviewers from the four-page record without a revised PDF, and writing for the technical-committee decision rather than for tone.
Use when positioning an ICASSP submission across the signal-processing literature — IEEE SPS journals (TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP and siblings), sibling conferences (Interspeech, ICIP, EUSIPCO, WASPAA), and ML venues, citing normally under single-blind review, and sharpening the technical delta against the nearest current-cycle work in four pages.
Use when deciding what goes in the four ICASSP pages versus a public release, given that ICASSP has no reviewed appendix — managing the 4+1 budget, curating optional multimedia (audio, image, video) that reviewers may open, hosting derivations and extra results externally, and keeping the main paper self-contained under single-blind review.
Use when ICCV reviews arrive and the one-page rebuttal must be drafted inside the one-week May window, covering the official template's constraints, evidence selection when no attachments or links are allowed, addressing reviewers who are themselves deadline-crushed authors, and writing for the meta-review that follows.
Use when hardening the reproducibility story of an ICCV paper, covering full recipe disclosure without a mandated compute form, protocol pinning for foundation-model and zero-shot evaluations, seed and variance honesty at vision training scale, and writing results that stay checkable across the two-year gap to the next ICCV.
Use when drafting or revising the prose and figures of an ICCV paper, covering writing for an international generalist reviewer pool, the inclusive 8-page economy, mechanism-first exposition, calibrated claims that survive a one-page rebuttal cycle, and captions and figures that carry the paper for readers who skim first.