artifact-pack
Skill15 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when preparing supplementary code/data for review (anonymous) or for an artifact-evaluation track after acceptance. Produces a reproducible artifact with README, one-command scripts, pinned dependencies, expected outputs with tolerances, a claims-to-commands map, and anonymous hosting during review.
In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- abstract-craftSkill
- anonymize-checkSkill
- baseline-pinSkill
- bench-protocolSkill
- bib-verifySkill
- camera-readySkill
- eprint-searchSkill
- experiments-writingSkill
- falsifySkill
- figure-harvestSkill
- idea-mining-loopSkill
- lean-bridgeSkill
- lit-matrixSkill
- log-to-evidenceSkill
- mock-reviewSkill
- paper-figuresSkill
- paper-playbookSkill
- param-estimationSkill
- phase-gateSkill
- polish-writingSkill
- reading-notesSkill
- rebuttalSkill
- related-work-writingSkill
- sage-checkSkill
- technique-overviewSkill
- textbook-indexSkill
- venue-calibrationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 55
Anonymous hosting during review: use an anonymising mirror service or a zip in the supplementary material.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Artifact pack
Template: templates/README_ARTIFACT.md (in this skill directory).
Goals (map to typical badges)
| badge (names vary by venue) | what it needs |
| Available | permanent public location (tagged repository or archive DOI) |
| Functional | documentation, completeness, runs, can be extended by others |
| Reproduced | an evaluator reruns the main experiments and the main claims hold within tolerance |
Layout
artifact/
README.md claims → commands → expected outputs → time/resources
LICENSE
env/ Dockerfile or environment pinning (requirements.txt with ==,
conda env.yml, or a Nix/Guix file); library commits pinned
baselines/MANIFEST.md third-party code: url + pinned commit/tag + build recipe
(fetch script, never vendored source trees)
scripts/
fetch_baselines.sh clones pinned commits
build.sh builds everything
smoke.sh < 10 minutes; checks every component runs and outputs verify
reproduce_table3.sh one script per paper table/figure
expected/ expected outputs (tables as csv, with tolerance notes)
results/ empty; scripts write here
EVIDENCE.md subset of the project ledger: paper number → script → logProcedure
- Claims map. From
EVIDENCE.md, list every number/table/figure of the paper and the script that regenerates it. Main claims first. Anything that cannot be regenerated is marked "not reproduced by the artifact" with the reason. - Pin everything: compiler version, library commits, Python packages with
==, estimator commit, random seeds. Record CPU/threads assumptions. - Scripts: one command per table; print the environment (CPU, compiler, commit)
at the start; write logs to
results/; verify correctness (decryption/cleartext reference) and fail loudly on mismatch. - Expected outputs + tolerance: absolute times vary by machine; state which quantities should match exactly (operation counts, parameters, security estimates, correctness) and which only in ratio (speedups, with an expected band). Explain that ratios come from interleaved runs in one session.
- Resource statement: RAM, disk, cores, expected wall time per script; offer a reduced configuration for small machines.
- Smoke test under 10 minutes; evaluators often start there.
- Anonymous hosting during review: use an anonymising mirror service or a
zip in the supplementary material. Run
anonymize-checkon the artifact directory and the zip (.gitexcluded, no usernames/hosts in logs, README without "our previous paper"). Refresh the mirror after the last push and check each file URL returns 200. Keep the archive under the venue's supplementary size cap. - After acceptance: de-anonymise, tag the release, archive (DOI), update the paper's artifact URL, submit to the artifact track within its window.
Common failure modes
- Scripts depend on absolute paths or a local cache directory; use paths relative to the artifact root and environment variables with defaults.
- Stale build directories used for measurements; always build from clean in scripts.
- Baseline built with a different, slower configuration than in the paper; document
flags in
baselines/MANIFEST.md. - Numbers in the paper from a noisy session that the artifact cannot reproduce; retract or re-measure before release.
- Hidden dependence on a proprietary tool (e.g. a commercial MILP solver or computer algebra system); provide a free fallback or state it clearly.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

