跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

aaai-writing-style

Use when revising an AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system and capability claims.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md3.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

AAAI Writing Style

Use this to make a technically sound draft readable to a broad AI program committee. AAAI rewards clear AI contribution, not only subfield-specific benchmark wins.

AAAI framing

  • State the AI problem, the new capability or insight, and the evidence in the first page.
  • Make clear whether the contribution is method, theory, system, benchmark, dataset, evaluation, human-AI interaction, social impact, or alignment.
  • Explain why the result matters outside a single dataset or implementation.
  • Keep claims aligned with the reproducibility checklist and supplementary evidence.
  • Discuss limitations and ethical considerations when the method affects people, safety, privacy, fairness, security, or social impact.

Two-column readability

  • Use figures and tables as decision aids, not decoration.
  • Keep notation lightweight and define it near first use.
  • Use compact related-work contrasts instead of long literature catalogues.
  • Make the Phase 1 summary easy: problem, method, evidence, limitation, checklist compliance.
  • Avoid unsupported "general intelligence", "human-level", or "safe" claims.

Reading the paper as a Phase-1 reviewer

A non-specialist on AAAI's broad committee gives the first page a few minutes and decides whether the paper is worth deeper reading. Write so that a planning or KR reviewer can summarize your learning contribution, and vice versa. Audit the opening against what that reader needs to extract fast.

First-page questionReviewer extractsFailure symptom
What is the problemone AI task statementjargon with no anchor
What is newthe single contributiona list, no headline
Why believe itevidence in one line"see Section 6" only
What are the limitsscope and caveatsilence or overclaim

Phrasing fixes that survive AAAI review

  • Replace "we achieve state of the art" with the specific delta and the setting it holds in.
  • Replace bare "safe" or "human-level" with a measured, scoped statement the evidence supports.
  • Replace a long related-work catalogue with two or three sharp contrasts a non-specialist can follow.
  • Tie every strong claim back to a checklist answer so rigor and prose agree.

Worked vignette

A multi-agent paper opens with three paragraphs of game-theory notation before naming its contribution. A vision reviewer cannot find the AI claim and is likely to stop. The fix rewrites sentence one as the problem, sentence two as the new coordination mechanism, sentence three as the one-line evidence, and a final clause scoping the result to the studied setting, all on page one.

Output format

[AAAI fit sentence] <one sentence>
[Contribution type] method / theory / system / benchmark / dataset / evaluation / social impact
[First-page fixes] <problem, method, evidence, limitation>
[Checklist alignment] pass / needs revision
[Overclaim risks] <claims to narrow or evidence to add>

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026年9月27日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题