Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/atc-supplementary
Use when deciding what belongs in the ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) two-page extended abstract, the 12-page paper body, the optional appendix, and the artifact — splitting content by review round and decision-criticality so nothing that decides acceptance lives where a reviewer is not required to read.
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 20 of 22 without it.
2 fixed20 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Can you evaluate the content placement across our four USENIX ATC submission components? We have a 2-page extended abstract, an 11-page body, a supplemental appendix containing sensitivity graphs and proofs, and an artifact repository. Please assess whether each component fulfills its review role and provide an evaluation for the abstract, body, appendix, and artifact, followed by a move queue specifying any material that should be relocated and the rationale for moving it.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluates the extended abstract as the round-one decision surface rather than an executive pitch. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
ATC gives you four places to put content, each read by a different reviewer under a different rule: the two-page extended abstract (round one, two reviewers), the 12-page body (round two, 3-4 reviewers), the appendix (optional reading), and the artifact (opened during round two and evaluated post-acceptance). Placing content correctly is a strategic decision, not a formatting one, because reviewers are not required to read the appendix and a round-one reviewer may read only the abstract.
Anything that decides acceptance goes in a place the deciding reviewer is required to read.
| Content | Home | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Problem, contribution, testbed, headline result, key cost | Extended abstract | The round-one decision surface; must stand alone |
| Design rationale, implementation, main experiments, fair baselines, tails/variance | Body (≤12 pp) | The round-two decision surface; nothing acceptance-critical may leave it |
| Extra sensitivity graphs, parameter sweeps, proofs, extended tables | Appendix | Optional depth; reviewers not required to read it |
| Full code, traces/datasets, configs, claim-to-experiment scripts | Artifact | Runnable evidence + badge material; paper still judged without running it |
The most common ATC mistake is treating the extended abstract as a marketing blurb that depends on
the paper. It is a self-contained argument that must survive being read instead of the paper
(see atc-writing-style). Move the real problem, the real contribution, and a real result into it;
do not defer them to "as shown in the paper."
test cases passed, vs 20 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.