Use when planning an AAAI project timeline from topic selection through abstract, OpenReview submission, two-phase review, rebuttal, decision, camera-ready, registration, presentation, and public artifact release.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use this as the project-management skill for an AAAI submission. Replace all dates with the current cycle's official timetable and work backwards from OpenReview cutoffs.
AAAI is a conference, not a journal: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition Program Chairs, and the cost model is registration fees, not APCs — at least one author must register at the in-person rate and present in person; AAAI-27 offers no remote option, and a paper without a registered presenter is removed before publication. The AAAI-27 chairs are not recorded in this pack: the AAAI-27 organizers URL still redirects to an older edition's roster, so no official page names them (the AAAI-26 chairs were Chad Jenkins and Matthew Taylor, and those appointments rotate). Re-check the current CFP and conference-organizers page rather than carrying a name or contact forward.
Because AAAI runs a two-phase review with hard OpenReview cutoffs and no second feedback round, the timeline is unforgiving. Anchor each gate to the prior one and to the official date, not a guess.
| Gate | Depends on | Slip consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract deadline | title, authors, conflicts locked | cannot submit the paper |
| Paper deadline | anonymous PDF, checklist, supplement | summary reject or no entry |
| Phase-1 cut | clarity and checklist done early | no feedback, paper dies |
| Feedback round | submitted evidence only | wasted on new-results bans |
| Camera-ready | acceptance, copyright, registration | dropped from proceedings |
Treat the Phase-1 cut as the real deadline, earlier than acceptance. Before the paper deadline, a non-specialist colleague should be able to state your contribution, find the evidence, and confirm the checklist matches the paper. If they cannot, the broad-AI reviewer will not either.
A team plans to "finish experiments in rebuttal." The workflow flags this as fatal: AAAI bars new results at feedback and may cut the paper in Phase 1 before feedback exists. The critical path moves to locking evidence and the checklist a week before the paper deadline, leaving the feedback window only for clarifying already-submitted material.
[Current stage] idea / experiments / writing / submission / Phase 1 / rebuttal / accepted
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <page, anonymity, checklist, supplement, policy>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.