Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when drafting or revising an OSDI paper's prose and structure — building the pain → abstraction → mechanism → measurement narrative, fitting it into the 12-page reviewed body with no appendix escape hatch, and writing for a PC told to down-rank padded papers and given no rebuttal to clarify with.
Use when targeting Past & Present or deciding whether a social, economic, or cultural history manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, its problem-driven "big question" argument bar, primary-source and historiographical expectations, Chicago house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
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.
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.
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.
Use when revising an IEEE PerCom paper for a pervasive-computing contribution on the first page, cross-subject claims stated precisely, a limitations section that argues rather than recites, evidence proportional to the claim, double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the tight IEEEtran 9-page budget.
Use when polishing a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay to house style — the argument-forward review voice, SAGE Harvard referencing, the ~8,000-word inclusive cap, ~100-word unstructured abstract, and 5+ keywords. Polishes prose and format; it does not build the argument.
Use when targeting Philosophy & Public Affairs or deciding whether an applied/political-moral philosophy manuscript on a matter of public concern fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the rigorous-argument and public-significance bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting Physical Review Applied (PRApplied) or deciding whether an applied-physics manuscript bridging fundamental physics and devices, quantum technology, photonics, energy, or sensing fits this APS venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when drafting a PLDI author response inside the short February window — triaging reviewer objections about soundness, baselines, and benchmark validity, correcting factual errors with pointers into the submitted PDF, and committing to feasible revisions without promising new systems work.