Skill UI

This skill implements an autonomous, multi-round research review loop, simulating the rigorous peer-review process of top-tier conferences. It iteratively reviews, identifies weaknesses, suggests fixes, and re-reviews a research document using the MiniMax API. The system manages state persistence across multiple rounds, ensuring continuous improvement until a 'ready' assessment is achieved or the maximum round limit is reached. Ideal for academic writing, thesis refinement, or comprehensive project documentation.

Audit Google Meet attendance by listing recent conferences, participants, and session durations using the `gws meet` commands to confirm who joined and for how long.

Provides paragraph-level structural blueprints and venue-specific checklists for 10–12 page systems conference submissions (OSDI/SOSP/ASPLOS/NSDI/EuroSys), covering writing patterns, reviewer guidance, LaTeX templates, and deadline tracking.

Prepare journal papers, conference submissions, posters, and grant documents with venue-specific formatting guidance, official template checks, and LaTeX scaffolds for drafting and compliance review.

This advanced skill is designed to generate high-quality, publication-ready academic illustrations and diagrams. It utilizes a sophisticated, multi-stage iterative workflow involving Claude for planning, layout optimization, and strict visual review, combined with a dedicated local Codex app-server bridge for native image rendering. The process ensures that generated figures meet the rigorous aesthetic and structural standards required for top-tier conferences and journals (e.g., CVPR, NeurIPS).

This skill orchestrates the constrained resubmission of a highly polished academic paper from one conference or workshop venue to another. It is designed for scenarios where the paper is finalized, and the goal is to absorb specific reviewer critiques (e.g., clarifying statements or minor edits) without introducing new experiments, changing the core bibliography, or restructuring the framework. It ensures the new submission is isolated in a sibling directory, preserving the integrity of prior submissions.

This guide provides a strategic framework for drafting highly effective and concise author rebuttals for major AI conferences like AAAI. Given strict character limits, no URLs, and no new results, it teaches authors how to triage reviewer feedback, focus on decision-critical factual errors, and maximize impact to improve paper acceptance chances.

A comprehensive guide detailing the multi-phase review structure of the AAAI conference. It advises authors on navigating the two-phase review process, mitigating Phase 1 rejection risks, structuring effective rebuttals, and understanding decision mapping across pre-submission, discussion, and final decision stages.

This guide provides a comprehensive project management framework for submitting research to the AAAI conference. It maps out every critical milestone, from initial topic selection and abstract submission, through the two-phase peer review, writing the rebuttal, and preparing the final camera-ready version and public artifacts. It emphasizes backward planning from hard deadlines and maintaining evidence integrity throughout the rigorous academic lifecycle.

This guide provides comprehensive instructions for packaging multiagent system (MARL) and game theory evidence for academic submissions, particularly for conferences like AAMAS. It emphasizes that the artifact must be inspectable, containing not just a trained model, but the game definition, environment code, opponent sets, and interaction protocols, ensuring rigorous reproducibility and reviewability.

A comprehensive project management guide for submitting academic papers to the AAMAS conference. It details all critical milestones, including venue fit, evidence locking, abstract submission, double-blind review, rebuttal, and final camera-ready preparation. Essential for managing complex research involving game theory and multi-agent systems.

A comprehensive guide for authors on drafting a strategic response during the OpenReview cycle. This resource covers how to address reviewer objections, shape the Area Chair's meta-review summary, manage the discussion phase, and decide whether to defend the paper or withdraw for a future revision cycle. Focus on clarity, conciseness, and evidence-based arguments.