Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weigh the interaction contribution.
Use when targeting ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for software testing.
Use when targeting ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for systems flagship.
Use when defending the research design of an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — fieldwork and participant observation, interview and archival design for ethnographic/qualitative work, material/contextual analysis for archaeology, and appropriate lab/quantitative design for biological anthropology. AA judges each mode on its own terms with reflexivity. Strengthens the design; it does not write code or run fieldwork.
Use when checking that an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review covers the literature even-handedly — across labs, paradigms, and rival theories — weighs evidence by credibility, and avoids self-promotion. Audits coverage and fairness; it does not build the search (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or design the spine (arpsych-organizing-framework).
Use when systematically gathering, reading, and structuring the literature for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review so coverage is comprehensive and current. Builds the evidence base; it does not design the analytical spine (arpsych-organizing-framework) or judge balance (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).
Use when interpreting the ACM CHI Papers review pipeline — 1AC and 2AC roles, the A/ARR/RR/RRX/X recommendation scale, desk-reject and rubric-based assisted desk-reject screening, the revise-and-resubmit threshold, round-2 PC decisions — and what each stage means for authors.
Use when the policy / institutional background section of a 《中国工业经济》 (China Industrial Economics) manuscript needs accurate detail — exact document names, effective dates, pilot batches and city lists, and the assignment rule that justifies the quasi-experiment. Sloppy policy detail is a frequent desk-reject trigger here.
Use to sharpen a topic for 《中国工业经济》 (China Industrial Economics) — anchoring on a clean China-policy quasi-experiment, firm behavior, industrial organization, or the digital economy, backed by stylized facts and 3–5 marginal contributions. Use before drafting, when the research question or contribution is fuzzy.
Use when reasoning about how an ACM CoNEXT submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the two-round TPC process with online discussion and a TPC meeting, the Accept / Reject / one-shot "major" revision decision categories, the journal-style revise-and-resubmit re-read by the original reviewers, shepherding, and how CoNEXT's two-cycle process differs from SIGCOMM and NSDI.