Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for mathematicians writing complex, pure-mathematics manuscripts for high-level journals. It focuses on laying out the architecture of the argument, ensuring that the novel contribution (the 'crux') and the difficulty are clear to a non-specialist referee. Learn how to decompose proofs into named lemmas, outline the strategy upfront, and properly attribute external results.

A comprehensive strategy guide for mathematical authors to stress-test their proofs before submission. It outlines how expert academic referees rigorously review work, advising on strengthening weak steps, verifying external theorems, clarifying the core argument, and handling boundary cases to significantly improve the manuscript's rigor and chances of acceptance.

A comprehensive guide to the rigorous standards for structuring pure mathematics manuscripts, specifically detailing the proper use of appendices and auxiliary material. It teaches authors how to distinguish between the essential core argument (which must remain in the main text) and supplementary technical results, long computations, or background lemmas (which belong in the appendix). This ensures the main text remains focused while maintaining academic rigor and verifiability for peer review.

This workflow acts as a router for writing rigorous pure mathematics manuscripts, specifically targeting the high standards of journals like the Annals of Mathematics. It guides the user through the entire lifecycle—from initial scope assessment and structuring proofs, to refining exposition, and managing revision cycles based on expert referee reports.

A specialized tool for polishing pure mathematics manuscripts, designed to enhance the rigor and overall flow of academic writing. It guides authors to eliminate soft language (e.g., "clearly," "obviously"), ensure precise quantification, explicitly state constant dependencies, and structure hypotheses meticulously. Ideal for late-stage proof refinement before journal submission.

This guide provides a methodological framework for drastically streamlining complex academic models, whether theoretical or structural/empirical. It teaches how to Strip assumptions, retain only the necessary components, and present the argument such that the entire paper focuses on delivering one distinct, surprising insight. Generalizations and lengthy proofs belong in the appendix, keeping the main text maximally focused and concise.

This guide provides best practices for organizing supplementary material and appendices in major conference submissions. It teaches authors how to maintain the core 11-page body's self-contained integrity while including necessary details (like full configurations, extended result grids, and full proofs) in appendices, ensuring the work remains robust even if reviewers do not read the supplemental content.

A comprehensive guide for authors targeting top-tier journals in systems and control theory (e.g., Automatica). This skill helps authors re-frame their work from narrow application studies to general, methodologically rigorous advances. It details the necessary components, including theoretical guarantees (stability, convergence, optimality), structured proofs, and necessary breadth to meet the highest academic standards.

A comprehensive checklist detailing all mandatory requirements for submitting academic manuscripts (e.g., Contemporary Accounting Research). It verifies compliance on key areas including length limits, abstract word count, separated title pages, blind manuscripts, ethics approval (IRB/REB), data integrity statements, and correct payment proof. Use this before the final upload to ensure maximum readiness and avoid editorial rejection.

This guide outlines the comprehensive process for submitting and evaluating Computer Aided Verification (CAV) research artifacts. It details the criteria for earning three badges (Available, Functional, Reusable), the two-phase review structure (smoke-test and full review), and best practices for packaging scientific tools, including the use of containers, pinned benchmarks, resource limits, and proof witnesses. This ensures reproducibility and rigor in academic research.

A comprehensive guide for drafting a technical author response (rebuttal) for peer-reviewed academic papers (CAV). It teaches authors how to structure a rebuttal by addressing specific objections related to proof soundness, benchmark fairness, novelty, and scope, using only verifiable evidence, not future promises.

This guide provides detailed protocols for achieving high levels of reproducibility in Computer Aided Verification (CAV) research. It emphasizes the necessity of pinning benchmark sets, recording exact tool versions, documenting resource limits (time/memory), and providing checkable proof witnesses to ensure that evaluation claims can be independently validated by competitors or reviewers.