Skill UI

Guides CTOs and tech leaders through strategy, architecture governance, team scaling, and crisis response, with workflows for technical debt assessment, ADR creation, and vendor evaluation to keep engineering healthy.

A comprehensive guide for achieving compliance with the EU MDR 2017/745. It covers crucial aspects including medical device classification (Annex VIII), developing technical documentation (Annex II/III), planning clinical evaluation (CER), and establishing post-market surveillance (PMS/PSUR) systems. Ideal for regulatory specialists preparing for Notified Body audits or needing to gap-check technical files.

Act as a constructive critic and rigorous stress-tester for any idea, proposal, or strategy. This mode systematically challenges underlying assumptions, identifies technical and market edge cases, anticipates diverse stakeholder objections (engineering, leadership, legal), and suggests actionable mitigations. Use it when you need a multi-faceted, robust evaluation to strengthen your plan before committing resources.

This tool generates a comprehensive hiring rubric and technical interview scorecard for evaluating software engineers at specific levels and roles. It defines clear behavioral anchors, structured technical questions, and system design criteria, ensuring consistent, unbiased evaluation across all interviewers, and providing a full debrief agenda.

This comprehensive guide provides authors with best practices for preparing supplementary artifacts for AAAI submissions. It outlines how to structure technical appendices, package reproducible code and data ZIPs, maintain strict anonymity (by removing author metadata and paths), and maximize the evidence for reproducibility. The goal is to ensure that external reviewers can easily verify the research claims without specialized or private tools.

This guide provides a detailed walkthrough of the AAMAS peer review process. It covers everything from initial submissions and technical evaluation (correctness, significance, rigor) to the rebuttal phase, area-chair synthesis, and final decisions. Use this when planning academic submissions or understanding the rigorous criteria for publishing multi-agent systems research.

This guide provides comprehensive best practices for ensuring scientific reproducibility in technical papers, particularly for electronics and information processing fields. It covers the critical pillars of documentation: environment setup, data sourcing and preprocessing, full algorithmic disclosure (including pseudo-code and hyperparameters), and robust statistical evaluation. By adopting these standards, authors can transform their work from potentially unverifiable results into credible, verifiable scientific contributions suitable for top-tier journals.

This guide outlines best practices for designing and executing Computer Aided Verification (CAV) empirical evaluations. It emphasizes ensuring evidence matches claims by using standard, pinned benchmark sets, selecting fair baselines, respecting equal resource limits, and employing rigorous reporting methods like cactus and scatter plots to establish technical soundness and performance.

Use this comprehensive guide to manage the entire project lifecycle for a CAV (Computer Aided Verification) paper submission. It provides a backward-planning timeline, covering topics from initial concept fitting and evidence locking to the two-stage review process, optional artifact evaluation, and final camera-ready submission. Essential for managing technical academic deadlines and mitigating common failure modes.

This guide details the comprehensive workflow for preparing an accepted ACM CCS paper for the final proceedings. It covers critical steps including de-anonymization, applying ACM sigconf templates and rights forms, incorporating shepherd/minor-revision feedback, placing artifact evaluation badges, and coordinating publication disclosure timing. Adherence to these technical and policy checks ensures compliance with ACM standards.

A comprehensive guide for drafting and revising top-tier systems papers, specifically for conferences like EuroSys. It details the required academic structure, including building the problem-to-mechanism arc, managing the 12-page technical budget, writing rigorous evaluation sections (including measuring failure cases), and maintaining the necessary double-blind academic voice.

A comprehensive guide detailing the ICASSP peer review pipeline, covering single-blind review mechanics, technical committee evaluation criteria, and the strategic importance of evidence, significance, and reproducibility in signal processing papers. Use this to craft submission strategies and decode decision letters.