Skill UI

Atlas Ledger is a critical companion designed to provide lasting 'memory' to project contracts. It automatically processes detected deviations or 'drift' (e.g., from audits or reviews) and distills these instances into formal, actionable contract clauses (WHEN/DON'T/INSTEAD). These clauses are written to a persistent project memory file, Atlas.md. This mechanism ensures that lessons learned from failure are systematically captured, allowing future contract cycles to incorporate these rules, thereby strengthening overall project governance and reliability.

This skill performs a comprehensive, read-only, multi-agent review of a git diff or file scope. It launches four specialized sub-agents—covering Regression, Security, Performance, and Contracts—in parallel. The main agent then aggregates, filters, and summarizes critical findings, ensuring the code change is robust, secure, and maintainable. Ideal for pre-commit or Pull Request review workflows.

A comprehensive guide detailing security patterns and audit checklists for Automated Market Maker (AMM) smart contracts in DeFi. Covers critical vulnerabilities such as flash loans, slippage, reentrancy attacks, price manipulation, and integer overflow/underflow. Essential for reviewing major DeFi protocols like Uniswap.

This skill prevents AI coding agents from generating generic interfaces by leveraging over 800,000 real web and iOS screens. It helps define design contracts, cover required states, and enforce quality gates during design, implementation, or review. Compatible with agents like Cursor, Copilot, and Claude Code, it ensures product-specific UIs grounded in actual user experience rather than hallucinated patterns.

This guide provides a detailed methodology for crafting formal academic responses after conference reviews (e.g., ATC). It distinguishes between the concise, evidence-based rebuttal—used to correct factual misreadings or supply missing measurements—and the structured description of changes, which serves as a point-by-point contract proving all required revisions were implemented. The core principles emphasize precision, supporting claims with concrete evidence, and maintaining academic anonymity.

A comprehensive strategic guide for authors responding to peer reviews at top-tier academic conferences. It teaches how to interpret reviews as a 'bin-sorting' problem, structure persuasive rebuttals, address specific technical objections (measurement, design), and convert vague revision conditions into a concrete, actionable resubmission contract and plan.

A detailed guide modeling the rigorous multi-round review process for major academic conferences, such as IMC. It covers the unique two-deadline cycle, the distinction between 'One-Shot-Revision' (a bounded, actionable contract) and general revisions, and emphasizes key review criteria including ethical treatment, artifact availability, and vantage-point representativeness. Essential for authors submitting measurement-heavy research.

This guide provides expert advice on positioning research papers for top-tier computer architecture conferences (e.g., ISCA, MICRO, ASPLOS). It teaches authors how to identify the 'center-of-gravity' of their novelty—whether it lies in the hardware organization, the hardware/software contract, or the software layer alone—to maximize review acceptance chances and successfully navigate the competitive academic publication landscape.

A comprehensive guide for authors revising technical papers for top-tier conferences like ISSTA. It details the necessary structure, emphasizing strict scope definition, establishing clear evaluation contracts (subjects, baselines, metrics), pairing every claim with concrete evidence, and adhering to specialized review discipline.

Provides a structured methodology for authors preparing a technical resubmission response, particularly for systems-level research. It emphasizes treating reviewer feedback as a contractual list of required changes, necessitating new measurements and concrete evidence rather than mere arguments. Users learn to create a critical 'change-map,' prioritize blocking concerns, and maintain professional anonymity during the resubmission process.

This comprehensive guide outlines the structured process for authors responding to peer review feedback for top-tier academic conferences (e.g., SIGCOMM). It critically distinguishes between drafting a concise, decision-focused rebuttal and executing a formal, contract-bound one-shot revision. It provides strict guidelines on building the required submission packet, including point-by-point responses, change-marked manuscripts, and evidence anchoring, ensuring submissions meet high academic standards.

This guide outlines the rigorous process for authors responding to a "revise" verdict at top-tier academic conferences. It teaches authors how to treat reviewer feedback as a formal contract, manage a tight revision timeline, structure necessary experiments, and write a highly traceable change document that explicitly addresses every required point.