Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when readying a CSCW manuscript for upload — confirming the current pathway (rolling via Manuscript Central as of mid-2026), the single-column ACM template, the word-length scrutiny band, anonymization of author and community identifiers, ethics statements, and desk-risk triage.
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-cscw-submission/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 42% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 39% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 32% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 40% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 29% | 0% |
A CSCW submission enters a journal pipeline, and as of the 2026-07-08 check the pipeline itself is in transition: the May 14, 2025 PCS deadline was the last fixed cutoff, and papers for CSCW 2027 and beyond flow through the rolling pathway on Manuscript Central (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pacmhci) with no deadline at all. The first audit item is therefore not the paper — it is the pathway.
account requirements, and any transitional instructions.
system and decision vocabulary of that cycle — do not migrate it yourself.
colleagues will hand you confident PCS-era instructions that no longer apply.
Confirm the rolling pathway names the same template before reformatting anything.
appendices). Under ~5,000 or over ~12,000 words invites added scrutiny, and length disproportionate to contribution is itself a desk-rejection ground — the venue's most distinctive gate. Prepare the one-sentence length defense.
sensitive-data handling stated in the methods section, not implied.
(cscw-supplementary packages the rest).
CSCW review is anonymous, and this venue has a second layer most conferences lack.
Layer 1 — authors: names, affiliations, institution and city references, and identifying grant information removed; self-citations in third person; metadata scrubbed from PDF and supplement files; acknowledgements withheld until acceptance.
Layer 2 — the studied setting: when the paper studies a specific team, organization, or online community, details that identify the setting can also identify the authors (a lab's known field site, a company only insiders could study, a community the authors visibly moderate). Audit for:
team is public.
linked to the authors' prior publications.
Where masking the setting would gut the contribution, mask asymmetrically: keep analytic detail, coarsen ownership detail.
| Risk | Mechanism | Standing | | --- | --- | --- | | Length incommensurate with contribution | Editor/chairs screening | Explicit desk-reject ground in the 2026-cycle CFP | | Author identity visible | Anonymity policy | Removal or rejection | | Setting-based deanonymization | Same policy, subtler leak | Reviewer-reported; damages trust for R&R | | Wrong-pathway upload | Platform transition confusion | Delay measured in weeks — expensive with no deadline pressure to excuse it | | Missing ethics account | Reviewer expectation, journal norms | Rarely desk-level, reliably decision-level | | Concurrent submission elsewhere | Standard ACM/journal policy | Verify current wording on the live CFP before certifying |
text1. Pathway verified on cscw.acm.org (date recorded): platform = ______ 2. Word count: ______ (defense sentence written if outside 5,000-12,000) 3. Layer-1 anonymity sweep: text, references, PDF metadata, supplement — pass 4. Layer-2 setting sweep: partner names, screenshots, reverse-searchable quotes — pass 5. Ethics statement present and specific — pass 6. Supplement inventory matches in-text references (cscw-supplementary) — pass 7. Metadata fields on the platform (title, abstract, authors held privately by the system, conflicts) match the PDF exactly 8. Confirmation email/receipt archived with a timestamp
Everything above dated 2026-07-08 describes a venue mid-migration. Before any real upload, re-verify the pathway, template, and policy wording on the live pages — this skill's job is to tell you what to verify, not to spare you the verifying.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 26,767 | 35,976 | +34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,752 | 5,152 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 29,879 | 37,800 | +27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,979 | 5,657 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 21,728 | 25,802 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,229 | 4,483 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 17,498 | 14,595 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,168 | 2,798 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 16,811 | 19,401 | +15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,687 | 2,919 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 14,664 | 13,916 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,588 | 2,573 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 14,407 | 10,915 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,520 | 2,013 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 16,532 | 14,140 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,904 | 3,036 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 17,103 | 18,961 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,317 | 3,238 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 14,064 | 20,286 | +44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,249 | 2,891 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 20,983 | 18,596 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,428 | 3,054 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 17,876 | 19,901 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,047 | 3,448 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 14,266 | 20,649 | +45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,836 | 2,906 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 18,278 | 13,600 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,779 | 2,484 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 13,122 | 9,968 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,271 | 1,829 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 15,914 | 15,144 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,642 | 2,620 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 16,958 | 22,757 | +34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,551 | 3,573 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 21,830 | 21,127 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,721 | 3,403 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 16,563 | 11,632 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,862 | 2,883 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 16,740 | 3,821 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,634 | 1,624 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 14,444 | 14,101 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,347 | 2,234 | +66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 13,139 | 15,229 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,886 | 2,298 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.