Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when designing or auditing IEEE PerCom empirical evaluations, covering real human subjects, leave-one-subject-out / cross-subject evaluation, F1 and event-level metrics on imbalanced activity classes, deployment realism (free-living vs. lab), fair baselines, contamination-aware model ablations, and matching evidence to the shape of each pervasive-computing claim.
Use when reasoning about how an IEEE PerCom research submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the three-TPC-member model, the early-rejection stage, the single-round bounded rebuttal gated by a "weak accept," the accept/reject decision, and how PerCom's process differs from ACM UbiComp/IMWUT's journal revise cycle.
Use when anticipating how a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay will be judged — the double-anonymous review model, decision categories, and the desk-reject triggers specific to a review journal. Explains what to expect; it does not draft the manuscript or the response letter.
Use when targeting Physical Review E (PRE) or deciding whether a statistical, nonlinear, soft-matter, or complex-systems physics manuscript fits this APS archival venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting Physical Review Letters (PRL) or deciding whether a physics manuscript fits this Letter-format, broad-importance venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting Physical Review X (PRX) or deciding whether a physics manuscript fits this open-access, high-impact, cross-subfield, longer-form APS venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting Physics Reports (Phys Rep) or deciding whether a long, comprehensive invited review across any area of physics fits this Elsevier review journal (Physics Letters C heritage). Encodes the journal's fit, framing, evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when interpreting PLDI's review pipeline — double-blind HotCRP reviewing by a PL-implementor PC, the February author-response window, March notification, up-to-10% Distinguished Paper selection, and how post-acceptance artifact evaluation and PACMPL publication follow the decision.
Use when deciding whether a project is PLDI-shaped — implementation insight with benchmark-grade evidence — or better routed inside the PACMPL family to POPL, OOPSLA, or ICFP, or outward to ASPLOS, CGO, CAV, ICSE/FSE, or a systems venue, based on where the claim's evidence actually lives.
Use to understand how PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) evaluates an essay — anonymous (blind) review with at least two reviewers, the Editorial Board's final decision, the Advisory Committee's reports, MLA-membership eligibility, and how anonymity is maintained. Sets expectations and shapes the essay to survive review; it does not contact editors.