/ase-artifact-evaluation
Use when preparing an accepted ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper's tool and data for the Artifact Evaluation track, targeting the ACM Artifacts Available and Artifacts Reusable badges on the track's own deadline, with the badge shown on the paper's front page
$ npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ase-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/ase-artifact-evaluation
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Use when preparing an accepted ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper's tool and data for the Artifact Evaluation track, targeting the ACM Artifacts Available and Artifacts Reusable badges on the track's own deadline, with the badge shown on the paper's front page
SKILL.md
ase-artifact-evaluation.SKILL.mdname: ase-artifact-evaluation
description: Use when preparing an accepted ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper's tool and data for the Artifact Evaluation track, targeting the ACM Artifacts Available and Artifacts Reusable badges on the track's own deadline, with the badge shown on the paper's front page in both IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library.
ASE Artifact Evaluation
Convert the accepted paper's package into **badges**. ASE runs an **Artifact Evaluation** track offering the **Artifacts Available** and **Artifacts Reusable** badges (ACM scheme). Because ASE proceedings are indexed in **both IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library**, an earned badge appears on the paper's front page in both. Evaluation happens on the track's **own deadline**, separate from the research-track notification — stage the package before then.
The two badges (verify the current call)
- **Artifacts Available** — the artifact is placed in a **publicly accessible archival repository**
with a **DOI** (Zenodo, figshare, Software Heritage, or an institutional/ACM repository). A personal GitHub link alone is not archival; mint a DOI.
- **Artifacts Reusable** — the artifact significantly exceeds minimal functionality: it is
**carefully documented and well-structured** so a third party can **reuse** the tool, not merely reproduce your tables. This is the higher bar and where automated-SE tools usually need the most work.
- Whether **Functional** and **Results Reproduced** badges are also offered at a given edition is
**待核实** — confirm on the current Artifact Evaluation call.
From the submission artifact to the badge artifact
The review-time (anonymized) artifact and the badge artifact are the same package matured. After acceptance you can **de-anonymize** it, but the substance should already be there if you followed `ase-reproducibility`.
[De-anonymize] restore the real tool name, authors, repository, license.
[Archive] deposit in a DOI-issuing archive; the DOI is what "Available" certifies.
[Document] README with exact run path, expected outputs, and a small worked example.
[Environment] container/lockfile pinning deps + the exact tool commit; note hardware needs.
[Reuse story] show how to run the tool on a NEW input, not just replay your experiments.
Reusable is about strangers, not your tables
Evaluators judge **reusability**, so write for someone who wants to use your automation on their own code:
- A clear entry point and documented inputs/outputs.
- Instructions to run on a **new** subject, with a template config.
- Sensible structure (source vs. data vs. scripts), an open **license**, and dependency pinning.
- Removal of dead scripts, secrets, and machine-specific paths.
Evaluator-proofing checklist
[Runs clean] fresh environment (container) -> documented command -> expected output, no manual patching
[DOI] archival deposit with a DOI + open license (for Available)
[Docs] README covers install, run, expected results, and reuse on a new input (for Reusable)
[Provenance] subject SHAs, dataset version, seeds, model IDs/dates + cached outputs included
[Scope honesty] hardware/time requirements and known limitations stated up front
[No secrets] API keys, tokens, private paths removed
Timing and scope
- The Artifact Evaluation deadline follows research-track acceptance; treat it as a real milestone,
not an afterthought — a strong tool with a weak package earns no badge.
- Evaluators are often students and junior researchers on a schedule: an artifact that needs a live
API key, unpinned dependencies, or your specific cluster will fail on setup regardless of the underlying quality.
- Badges are recognition, not re-review of the science; the paper is already accepted. The goal is
durable, reusable automation.
Output format
[Target badges] Available / Reusable (Functional/Reproduced 待核实 for this edition)
[Archive] DOI minted? open license?
[Runs clean] fresh-env command -> expected output, no manual fixes?
[Reusable] docs + run-on-new-input path present?
[Provenance] SHAs / dataset version / seeds / model IDs / cached outputs bundled?
[Blockers] <ordered fixes before the AE deadline>
Read more
name: ase-artifact-evaluation description: Use when preparing an accepted ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper's tool and data for the Artifact Evaluation track, targeting the ACM Artifacts Available and Artifacts Reusable badges on the track's own deadline, with the badge shown on the paper's front page in both IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library.
ASE Artifact Evaluation
Convert the accepted paper's package into **badges**. ASE runs an **Artifact Evaluation** track offering the **Artifacts Available** and **Artifacts Reusable** badges (ACM scheme). Because ASE proceedings are indexed in **both IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library**, an earned badge appears on the paper's front page in both. Evaluation happens on the track's **own deadline**, separate from the research-track notification — stage the package before then.
The two badges (verify the current call)
- **Artifacts Available** — the artifact is placed in a **publicly accessible archival repository**
with a **DOI** (Zenodo, figshare, Software Heritage, or an institutional/ACM repository). A personal GitHub link alone is not archival; mint a DOI.
- **Artifacts Reusable** — the artifact significantly exceeds minimal functionality: it is
**carefully documented and well-structured** so a third party can **reuse** the tool, not merely reproduce your tables. This is the higher bar and where automated-SE tools usually need the most work.
- Whether **Functional** and **Results Reproduced** badges are also offered at a given edition is
**待核实** — confirm on the current Artifact Evaluation call.
From the submission artifact to the badge artifact
The review-time (anonymized) artifact and the badge artifact are the same package matured. After acceptance you can **de-anonymize** it, but the substance should already be there if you followed `ase-reproducibility`.
[De-anonymize] restore the real tool name, authors, repository, license. [Archive] deposit in a DOI-issuing archive; the DOI is what "Available" certifies. [Document] README with exact run path, expected outputs, and a small worked example. [Environment] container/lockfile pinning deps + the exact tool commit; note hardware needs. [Reuse story] show how to run the tool on a NEW input, not just replay your experiments.
Reusable is about strangers, not your tables
Evaluators judge **reusability**, so write for someone who wants to use your automation on their own code:
- A clear entry point and documented inputs/outputs.
- Instructions to run on a **new** subject, with a template config.
- Sensible structure (source vs. data vs. scripts), an open **license**, and dependency pinning.
- Removal of dead scripts, secrets, and machine-specific paths.
Evaluator-proofing checklist
[Runs clean] fresh environment (container) -> documented command -> expected output, no manual patching [DOI] archival deposit with a DOI + open license (for Available) [Docs] README covers install, run, expected results, and reuse on a new input (for Reusable) [Provenance] subject SHAs, dataset version, seeds, model IDs/dates + cached outputs included [Scope honesty] hardware/time requirements and known limitations stated up front [No secrets] API keys, tokens, private paths removed
Timing and scope
- The Artifact Evaluation deadline follows research-track acceptance; treat it as a real milestone,
not an afterthought — a strong tool with a weak package earns no badge.
- Evaluators are often students and junior researchers on a schedule: an artifact that needs a live
API key, unpinned dependencies, or your specific cluster will fail on setup regardless of the underlying quality.
- Badges are recognition, not re-review of the science; the paper is already accepted. The goal is
durable, reusable automation.
Output format
[Target badges] Available / Reusable (Functional/Reproduced 待核实 for this edition) [Archive] DOI minted? open license? [Runs clean] fresh-env command -> expected output, no manual fixes? [Reusable] docs + run-on-new-input path present? [Provenance] SHAs / dataset version / seeds / model IDs / cached outputs bundled? [Blockers] <ordered fixes before the AE deadline>
Stanford REAP × CoPaper.AI · 由斯坦福实证方法论团队精选与维护 访问 copaper.ai 微信:CoPaper.AI 按 11 个主流学科板块覆盖 经管与商科 社会科学 人文学科 数学与物理科学 生命科学 医学与健康 工程与技术 计算机科学与 AI 体育科学 点击任一学科名可跳转到对应说明;每类下的代表子领域在正文总览中完整列出。下方封面墙按 venue 导航,完整分类见覆盖一览。 🧭 布局指南 · 📚 Skill Pack 一览 · ⚡ 如何使用 · 🧪 自动实证
Other skills on awesome-journal-skills.
- /aaai-artifact-evaluation
Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
Open skill - /aaai-author-response
Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round
Open skill - /aaai-camera-ready
Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and
Open skill - /aaai-experiments
Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and
Open skill - /aaai-related-work
Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a
Open skill - /aaai-reproducibility
Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that
Open skill

