Neurips Supplementary
Documentsneurips-supplementaryNeurips Supplementary is an Agent Skill for documents published in the brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills repository on GitHub: a SKILL.md instruction file an AI agent can load to do this task.
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.
How to use this skill
Bring this guide into your coding agent with a prompt tailored to the tool you use.
- Open your project in Codex.
- Copy and paste the prompt below.
- Review files and risks before approving any action.
Inspect the Agent Skill at https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/NeurIPS-Skills/skills/neurips-supplementary/SKILL.md and all supporting files. Report provenance, permissions, scripts, dependencies, and security risks. Propose an exact installation into .agents/skills/neurips-supplementary, but wait for my approval before writing files or running scripts.
Copying this prompt does not install or run the skill. Review third-party files before use.
NeurIPS Supplementary
Use this skill to prevent two common NeurIPS failures: hiding the main contribution in the appendix and overloading the main paper with details that belong in supplemental material.
Placement rules
- Main paper: problem, contribution, method, essential theory, core experiments, limitations, and enough detail for reviewers to judge correctness.
- References: complete, verified citations; do not rely on AI-generated references without manual verification.
- Text appendices: proofs, derivations, additional ablations, dataset details, model cards, extended limitations, and supporting analyses.
- Checklist: mandatory and placed according to current template instructions.
- Separate ZIP: code, data, scripts, configuration files, logs, lightweight demo assets, or other review artifacts when allowed by current rules.
NeurIPS-specific guardrails
- The supplement does not rescue an unclear main claim. Reviewers are not required to read every supplemental detail.
- Supplementary material must be anonymized during double-blind review.
- Links must preserve anonymous browsing and comply with current policy.
- Code and data that support central claims should include exact commands and environment details, not just a repository dump.
Placement decision table
NeurIPS assembles the final PDF from distinct zones plus a separate review ZIP. Misplacing material is a recurring weakness: a proof that a reviewer cannot find, or a contribution buried where it does not count. Map each item to exactly one home before submission; reopen the current template for the authoritative zone list.
| Material | Home | Reason it goes there |
|---|---|---|
| Central claim, headline result | Main body | reviewers judge the contribution here |
| Full proofs and derivations | Text appendix | body states the theorem; appendix carries the proof |
| Extra ablations, seeds, scaling | Text appendix | supports but does not replace core experiments |
| Dataset/model cards, datasheets | Text appendix + ZIP | provenance reviewers expect, anonymized |
| Mandatory Paper Checklist | Template-specified slot | desk-reject risk if missing or misplaced |
| Runnable code, configs, logs | Separate ZIP | review-only artifact, not body pages |
| Broader-impact discussion | Main body | a NeurIPS norm reviewers look for, not appendix-only |
Datasets & Benchmarks supplement note
For a Datasets & Benchmarks track submission, the datasheet, license, intended-use statement, and hosting/maintenance plan are not optional appendix garnish; they are part of what reviewers score. Keep them anonymized for review and stage a de-anonymized public version for release. Hedge the exact required documentation to the current year's track call.
Worked vignette: a benchmark paper
Authors put their 40-page datasheet, croissant metadata, and loading code only in the appendix and leave the main body to leaderboard tables. A NeurIPS reviewer cannot judge dataset quality from tables alone. The fix: lift provenance, licensing, consent, and intended-use sentences into the main body so the contribution is visible; keep the full datasheet and loaders in the appendix and ZIP; and add one navigation sentence telling reviewers exactly where the documentation lives.
Output format
[Main-paper must stay] <items>
[Move to appendix] <items>
[Move to ZIP/artifact] <items>
[Anonymity fixes] <items>
[Reviewer navigation] <one sentence telling reviewers where to find support>