Use when revising an AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system and capability claims.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Writing & Editing pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 15 of 22 without it.
Without skill68%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response identifies benchmark as the primary contribution category.
The output states that figures should act as decision aids rather than decoration.
The feedback states that claims must align with the reproducibility checklist answers.
and 3 more in the full report
6 fixed15 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+27 pp
Tokens
+3%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-37%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 6
Prompt
I am preparing a draft introduction for a multi-agent decision-making paper to submit to AAAI. Here is my opening section: [insert draft text]. Please review this against AAAI reviewer standards. Provide an assessment structured with a high-level fit sentence, the primary contribution category, targeted page-one fixes for the problem, method, evidence, and scope boundaries, a checklist compliance verdict, and a list of overclaim risks I should adjust.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response classifies the manuscript's primary contribution using one of: method, theory, system, benchmark, dataset, evaluation, or social impact.
Missed
Passed
case-01 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md59 linessingle file
AAAI Writing Style
Use this to make a technically sound draft readable to a broad AI program committee. AAAI rewards
clear AI contribution, not only subfield-specific benchmark wins.
AAAI framing
State the AI problem, the new capability or insight, and the evidence in the first page.
Make clear whether the contribution is method, theory, system, benchmark, dataset, evaluation,
human-AI interaction, social impact, or alignment.
Explain why the result matters outside a single dataset or implementation.
Keep claims aligned with the reproducibility checklist and supplementary evidence.
Discuss limitations and ethical considerations when the method affects people, safety, privacy,
fairness, security, or social impact.
Two-column readability
Use figures and tables as decision aids, not decoration.
Keep notation lightweight and define it near first use.
Use compact related-work contrasts instead of long literature catalogues.
Make the Phase 1 summary easy: problem, method, evidence, limitation, checklist compliance.
Avoid unsupported "general intelligence", "human-level", or "safe" claims.
Reading the paper as a Phase-1 reviewer
A non-specialist on AAAI's broad committee gives the first page a few minutes and decides whether the
paper is worth deeper reading. Write so that a planning or KR reviewer can summarize your learning
contribution, and vice versa. Audit the opening against what that reader needs to extract fast.
First-page question
Reviewer extracts
Failure symptom
What is the problem
one AI task statement
jargon with no anchor
What is new
the single contribution
a list, no headline
Why believe it
evidence in one line
"see Section 6" only
What are the limits
scope and caveat
silence or overclaim
Phrasing fixes that survive AAAI review
Replace "we achieve state of the art" with the specific delta and the setting it holds in.
Replace bare "safe" or "human-level" with a measured, scoped statement the evidence supports.