Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cscw-related-work
Use when positioning a CSCW paper's related work — engaging the venue's own concept lineage, the PACMHCI-era literature, neighboring HCI venues, and the social sciences CSCW borrows from, with era-correct citations and anonymity-safe self-references for journal-model review.
Passed 22 of 24 test cases with the skill, and 16 of 24 without it.
and 7 more in the full report
7 fixed15 passed either way1 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I am finalizing the related work section for my upcoming CSCW paper on platform moderation practices. Could you review my draft literature review text and reference list to make sure I am synthesizing the different subfields effectively, properly referencing foundational theories, and using appropriate citation styles across different publication eras? Please provide a structured diagnostic summary evaluating my positioning strategies, primary source grounding, citation formatting accuracy, and review anonymization.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Includes the diagnostic line '[Lineage]' in the structured audit block. | Missed | Passed |
| Flags post-2017 CSCW citations that fail to use the PACMHCI journal format. | Missed | Passed |
| Evaluates whether primary texts are cited for foundational social theories. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Related work at CSCW is not a defensive perimeter; it is where the paper joins a forty-year conversation. Reviewers here are unusually likely to be the authors of the traditions you cite, to know the concept lineage personally, and — because of Revise and Resubmit — to check in round two whether the engagement you added in round one is real.
| Literature | What reviewers check | Failure smell |
|---|---|---|
| CSCW's own lineage | That you know the concept history (awareness, articulation work, incentive misalignment, place/space) before renaming a piece of it | "We introduce the novel notion of..." for an idea with a 1992 citation |
| Recent PACMHCI-era CSCW work | Engagement with the last ~3-5 years of the venue on your topic | A related-work section whose newest CSCW citation predates the journal era |
| Neighboring venues | CHI, ICWSM, GROUP, DIS, and TOCHI work on the same phenomenon, cited by contribution rather than lumped | Treating a CHI interface study and a CSCW practice study as interchangeable |
| Source disciplines | The sociology, organization studies, communication, or STS work your framing borrows | Invoking a social theory via a secondary HCI citation only |
Braiding matters more than coverage: a paragraph per literature, each ending in what this paper takes from or contests in it, beats an alphabetical tour.
CSCW's publication record has a seam in it, and sloppy citations tear on the seam:
conf/cscw stream) or the ACM DL PACMHCI
CSCW track; fix venue strings your reference manager guessed.The Lasting Impact lineage in resources/exemplars/library.md doubles as a spine
for concept-history paragraphs: if your topic touches failure-of-adoption, cite
through Grudin 1988; awareness, through Dourish & Bellotti 1992; place and presence,
through Harrison & Dourish 1996; sensitive-community storytelling, through Dimond et
al. 2013; moderation at platform scale, through the PACMHCI-era trace canon.
test cases passed, vs 16 / 24 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.