Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cscw-topic-selection
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at CSCW — is the group, community, or organization the real unit of analysis? — and running the routing decision against CHI, ICWSM, DIS, GROUP, TOCHI, and social-science journals before any drafting or platform account setup begins.
Passed 20 of 24 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 24 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
9 fixed11 passed either way3 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We evaluated how open-source software maintainers formulate governance rules for reviewing third-party code contributions. We need a fit assessment and a single fallback venue if CSCW reviewers reject the framing. Output the result using the bracketed verdict keys.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Includes the bracketed key `[Re-route candidate]`. | Missed | Passed |
| Names exactly one re-route venue candidate. | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
CSCW publishes human-centered research on technology that supports or reshapes social, cooperative, and collaborative practice. The venue test is not "does this involve people and computers" — nearly everything does — but whether the paper's explanatory action happens at the level of a group, community, organization, or network. Run this decision before writing, because the framing it produces changes the introduction, the methods, and even which platform you submit through.
Ask three questions of the project's core claim:
| Signal in your project | Better home | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The novelty is an interaction technique, input method, or interface design | CHI (or UIST for technique depth) | CSCW reviewers will ask "where is the group?" and find no answer |
| Large-scale social-media measurement with no design or cooperative-work stake | ICWSM | Measurement-first culture; CSCW wants the collaboration consequence drawn out |
| A designed artifact where the argument is the design process itself | DIS | Design-research epistemology has its own reviewing home |
| Smaller-scope group-work study wanting a community conversation | GROUP | Same intellectual family, different scale and pacing |
| A mature line needing unlimited space and no conference tie | TOCHI or a social-science journal | CSCW already runs journal review, but PACMHCI CSCW papers carry a conference presentation expectation |
| Governance/harms analysis where accountability frameworks are the core | FAccT | Policy-normative reviewing culture fits better |
The CHI/CSCW boundary is the one most authors get wrong, in both directions. Both venues accept qualitative and quantitative work about people and technology. The working separation: CHI's center of gravity is the human-computer interaction — capability, interface, individual experience; CSCW's is the *human-human
test cases passed, vs 12 / 24 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.