SkillAgentSearch skills...

aaai-submission

Use when auditing an AAAI main technical track submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reproducibility checklist, supplementary material, author limits, multiple-submission policy, and AAAI AI-use policy compliance.

Install / Use

npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaai-submission

Installs into whichever agent you are using.

About this skill
📄

SKILL.md

Installable skill definition

Quality Score

88/100

Category

Legal

Supported Platforms

Universal

Our assessment of aaai-submission

aaai-submission scores 88/100 on our quality scale, 66th of 238 Legal skills we index (top 28%).

Its SKILL.md is 6.3 KB long, well organised into 8 sections with 1 code example: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.

With 1,158 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.

Substance
29/30
Structure
17/20
Description
15/15
Adoption
13/20
Freshness
15/15

Maintenance, license and trust

  • The repository was last updated 18 days ago, so aaai-submission is actively maintained.
  • It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
  • Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.

aaai-submission compared with similar skills

All 4 of these similar skills score higher than aaai-submission; compare them before choosing.

SkillScoreStarsUpdatedFormat
aaai-submission (this skill)by brycewang-stanford881.2k18d agoSKILL.md
algorithmic-artby anthropics100177.9k10d agoSKILL.md
pptxby anthropics100177.9k10d agoSKILL.md
designby nextlevelbuilder100130.2k12d agoSKILL.md
ui-ux-pro-maxby nextlevelbuilder100130.2k12d agoSKILL.md

Frequently asked questions

How do I install aaai-submission?
Run npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaai-submission. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent.
Which AI agents does aaai-submission work with?
It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
Is aaai-submission safe to use?
It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
Is aaai-submission still maintained?
The repository was last updated 18 days ago, so aaai-submission is actively maintained.

name: aaai-submission description: Use when auditing an AAAI main technical track submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reproducibility checklist, supplementary material, author limits, multiple-submission policy, and AAAI AI-use policy compliance.

AAAI Submission

Use this for an AAAI main technical track submission audit. Reopen the current conference page, Author Kit, CFP, submission instructions, review process page, supplementary-material page, and author policies before giving deadline-ready advice.

Submission audit

  • Confirm the target track: Main Track, AI for Social Impact, AI Alignment, or another AAAI program. Track-specific rules can differ.
  • Verify OpenReview account/profile readiness, conflicts, author list, subject areas, and submission metadata before the abstract and paper deadlines.
  • Check the current AAAI author kit. AAAI-27 submissions use AAAI two-column camera-ready style and US Letter PDF, with a main PDF of at most 9 pages whose pages 8-9 are references only — 7 pages of non-reference content. Any ethical statement counts inside those 7 pages.
  • Confirm double-blind compliance in the PDF, file names, references to prior work, supplement, code/data, and metadata. Omit acknowledgments in the review version.
  • Upload the reproducibility checklist in its own submission field, not inside the paper PDF — AAAI-27 moved it out of the document, and a checklist buried after the references is now a missing checklist.
  • Enforce the author submission limit and author-change rules. AAAI-27 limits each author to 10 combined main-technical-track submissions (the AI Alignment and AI for Social Impact special tracks are excluded from that count), allows no author additions after submission, and permits modifications only until the full-paper deadline.
  • Check multiple-submission compliance. An AAAI submission under review cannot simultaneously be under review at another archival venue, and AAAI-27 names the patterns it treats as violations: cosmetic re-submission, "thin slicing" one contribution across papers, splitting results by method/dataset/domain, and obfuscated or "alternative universe" duplicates. Papers sharing authors may be assessed together for novelty.
  • Apply the current AAAI AI-use policy: editing/polishing author-written text may be allowed, but LLM-generated manuscript text, AI authorship, and AI-generated citations are policy risks.

Blocking risks

  • Over-limit technical content or malformed PDF.
  • Missing reproducibility checklist.
  • Identity leakage in paper, supplement, links, code, data, or prior-work citations.
  • Author added after the allowed window.
  • Concurrent archival submission.
  • Web pointers to mutable supplementary material.
  • Policy-violating LLM-generated text, hallucinated references, or plagiarism.

Summary-reject screen

AAAI's large reviewer pool and high volume mean a desk-level or Phase-1 cut is the most likely way to lose, so screen for the mechanical failures first.

| Check | Fast-fail trigger | Where it bites | | --- | --- | --- | | Page limit | technical content over the cap | desk return | | Anonymity | author name in PDF, code, or metadata | policy reject | | Checklist | missing or contradictory | Phase-1 distrust | | Dual submission | concurrent archival venue | ethics reject |

Pre-deadline evidence packet

Build a single review-version packet before the abstract deadline, then refresh it before final submission. The packet is not a substitute for the official instructions; it is a way to make the submission audit reproducible and to keep late fixes from creating new policy problems.

| Packet item | What to capture | Failure it prevents | | --- | --- | --- | | Policy snapshot | current conference page, Author Kit, submission instructions, supplementary-material rules, and AI-use policy checked dates | applying a closed cycle's facts to the open one | | PDF proof | page count, paper size, style file, checklist placement, font/figure warnings, and metadata scrub result | desk return for formatting or anonymity | | Author ledger | OpenReview profiles, conflicts, subject areas, author-limit count, and author-list freeze status | profile conflict, over-limit author, late author change | | Supplement ledger | every appendix, multimedia, code/data ZIP, README, license note, and anonymous link policy decision | mutable web pointer or identity leak | | Ethics ledger | dual-submission status, human-subjects/data constraints, AI-use disclosure, plagiarism/citation check | policy reject after submission |

For each item, record the evidence path and the person who can fix it. If a rule is uncertain, mark it as "requires current chair/author-kit confirmation" instead of guessing.

Anonymity sweep order

Run anonymity checks in a fixed order so fixes do not reintroduce leaks:

  1. PDF text: names, affiliations, acknowledgments, grants, self-identifying project names, and obvious self-citations.
  2. PDF metadata: title, author, producer, comments, embedded attachments, and file name.
  3. References: prior work phrased as "our previous" or "submitted to" when blind citation would be required.
  4. Supplement: ZIP names, directory names, notebooks, comments, plots, data paths, license files, and executable logs.
  5. External references: GitHub, project pages, anonymous archives, videos, demos, or issue trackers.
  6. OpenReview metadata: author list, conflicts, subject areas, institutional hints in abstract or keywords.

The output should separate "must fix before submission" from "acceptable but document why." Do not rely on a single manual skim; use PDF metadata tools, archive listing, and text search when available.

Worked vignette

A robotics-learning team has 7 strong technical pages but left an acknowledgments line and a GitHub URL with their lab name in the supplement. The audit flags anonymity as the highest summary-reject risk: the fix order is strip the acknowledgment, replace the link with an anonymous archive, scrub ZIP metadata, then re-export and re-run the anonymity sweep before the paper deadline.

Output format

[AAAI readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Track] Main / AI for Social Impact / AI Alignment / other
[Blocking checks] <page/anonymity/checklist/supplement/author-limit/dual-submission/AI-policy>
[Highest summary-reject risk] <one issue>
[Fix order] <ordered fixes before submission>

Related Skills

View on GitHub
GitHub Stars1.2k
CategoryLegal
Updated18d ago
Forks153

Languages

Stata

Trust signals

100/100

From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.

No cautions