Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — qualitative coding and data-to-theory construction, critical interpretation, or quantitative estimation and robustness. Makes the evidence-to-theory link transparent; it does not design the study (see humrel-methods).
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).
Use when calibrating expectations for the Human Relations (HR) review process — the editorial scoping screen, double-anonymous developmental review, decision types, timelines, and when a sibling journal is the better route. Sets expectations; it does not draft the rebuttal (see humrel-rebuttal).
Use when deciding whether a question belongs in Human Relations (HR) and how to frame it for the journal's interdisciplinary work-and-society audience. Tests fit and sharpens the question; it does not develop the theory or invent evidence.
Use to understand why ICALP (EATCS) has no artifact-evaluation track or badge scheme, and what plays the equivalent role for a pure-theory paper — the full version with complete proofs, reproducible computational certificates, and optional machine formalization — so authors coming from a systems/ML venue do not waste effort building an artifact ICALP does not evaluate.
Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.
Use when reasoning about ICASSP peer review — the IEEE Signal Processing Society technical-committee pipeline, EDICS-based assignment, single-blind reviewing, the recently added short rebuttal, oral-versus-poster allocation, the roughly-even acceptance rate, and how a signal-processing decision is actually made and should be decoded.
Use when positioning an ICCV paper against the literature, covering the intervening-cycle problem of citing a CVPR and an ECCV that happened since the last ICCV, concurrent-preprint etiquette around the March deadline, double-blind self-reference and the do-not-cite-your-repo rule, and venue-attribution hygiene across the vision big three.
Use when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement, the reviewer LLM prohibition, decision statistics at 24% acceptance, oral and Highlight tiers, and the post-decision Findings outlet.
Use when deciding whether a computer-vision project should target ICCV, weighing the biennial odd-year cadence and its two-year option cost, what the Marr Prize lineage says about ICCV taste, honest odds at 24% acceptance, and when to hold work for CVPR, ECCV, WACV, or a journal instead of forcing the March deadline.