# Neurips Supplementary

> Neurips 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.

- Skill name: `neurips-supplementary`
- Category: [Documents](https://www.openparable.com/skill/documents/1)
- Source: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/NeurIPS-Skills/skills/neurips-supplementary/SKILL.md
- Repository: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills (805 GitHub stars when collected)

## SKILL.md

# 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

```text
[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>
```

---

Source: https://www.openparable.com/skill/documents/neurips-supplementary (OpenParable). Cite the canonical URL above.