本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

aamas-supplementary

Use when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiments paper across the 8-page body and the supplement.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

AAMAS Supplementary

Use this when assembling AAMAS supplementary material. The supplement can support the paper, but the 8-page main submission must stand on its own; a body that is unintelligible without the appendix reads as unreviewable within the page limit.

Supplement structure

  • Put full proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra ablations, opponent-set documentation, and robustness tables in a clean appendix or supplementary document.
  • Put executable assets - game code, environments, learning rules - in the anonymized zip when the current OpenReview form allows it.
  • Respect the current supplement size cap (25 MB single zip in 2026) and the deadline.
  • Keep every supplementary file double-blind: no authors, institutions, acknowledgements, private paths, repository owners, or identifying metadata.
  • Do not hide essential motivation, the core game definition, the main theorem statements, or the primary interaction results in the supplement.
  • Verify the archive opens on a clean machine and carries no credentials, caches, or OS metadata.

Appendix architecture for proofs and games

  • Order appendix sections to mirror the body: game and notation, main proofs, auxiliary lemmas, additional agents/opponents, then extended experiments.
  • Restate each theorem and the relevant game before its proof so the appendix reads standalone without flipping back to the two-column body.
  • Keep one proof sketch and the full game definition in the body itself; an AAMAS paper whose entire strategic argument lives in the appendix cannot be judged in eight pages.
  • Cross-reference every appendix table, lemma, and opponent set from the body at least once; orphaned supplement material is invisible under reviewer discretion.

What gets opened first

Supplement itemInspection likelihoodPractical implication
Proof of the headline equilibrium/mechanism resultHighPolish to main-text standard
Extended game or environment definitionHighReviewers reconstruct the interaction from it
Extra opponent/population resultsMediumReference each from the body
Code/environment archiveVariable, reviewer discretionREADME must orient a reader in one minute
Raw episode logsLowInclude for completeness, never rely on them

Vignette: splitting a mechanism-design paper

A submission proving a truthful decentralized mechanism plus a self-play study: the body keeps the mechanism definition, the dominant-strategy theorem, one proof sketch, and the two decision-critical figures (truthfulness under learning and the efficiency gap); the appendix holds full proofs and sensitivity sweeps; the zip carries the game generator and the strategic-deviation harness. Nothing decision-critical lives only in the zip, because archive inspection is discretionary.

Output format

[Supplement status] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Files] <appendix/proofs/game-defs/code/logs>
[Size/deadline] <current cap and deadline with source>
[Anonymity checks] <passed/issues>
[Main-paper dependency] <what breaks if supplement is ignored>

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する