iclr-supplementary
GitHub用于组织ICLR论文附录、补充材料及匿名代码数据。指导主文与附录内容划分，确保匿名合规，优化讨论期修订标签，提升证据可发现性。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill iclr-supplementary -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "iclr-supplementary",
"description": "Use when organizing ICLR appendices, supplementary files, anonymous code\/data, revised PDFs, private links, and discussion-period updates under OpenReview rules. Use when deciding what stays in the main text versus the appendix, how to label a discussion-period revision so reviewers find changes fast, or how to package anonymous artifacts that remain part of the permanent public record after acceptance."
}
ICLR Supplementary
Use this when deciding what belongs in the main PDF, appendix, supplementary files, or private discussion-period links. The goal is to make extra evidence easy to find without hiding the paper's core argument outside the main text.
Structure
- Keep central method, claims, and minimum evidence in the main text.
- Put derivations, extended ablations, robustness, extra qualitative examples, hyperparameters, model cards, dataset cards, and ethics details in the appendix.
- Use supplementary files for code, data, large tables, logs, demos, and artifacts that do not fit cleanly in the PDF.
- Include a one-page appendix map at the start when the appendix is long.
- Label discussion-period revisions explicitly so reviewers can find changes quickly.
Anonymity and access
- Remove author names, institutions, usernames, Git remotes, file paths, cloud buckets, and license headers that identify the team.
- Avoid links that reveal visitors or owner accounts. Prefer anonymized repositories, static files, or private OpenReview-visible links permitted by the current guide.
- Make supplementary filenames descriptive but neutral.
- If code cannot be released, state the legal or privacy constraint and provide a smaller reproducibility substitute.
Main-text versus appendix placement
ICLR's single-track format means the main PDF carries the argument and appendices come after references with generous room. The risk is burying decisive evidence where a time-pressed reviewer never looks, while padding the appendix with material that proves nothing.
| Content | Belongs in | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Central claim and its key result | Main text | Reviewers may not open the appendix |
| Full proof / extended derivation | Appendix | Needed for rigor, not for the headline |
| Hyperparameters, model/dataset cards | Appendix | Reference material, not argument |
| Code, logs, large tables, checkpoints | Supplementary ZIP | Too big or interactive for the PDF |
| Decisive ablation a claim depends on | Main text | Moving it weakens the narrative |
Worked vignette
A generative-model paper hides its only fairness-of-comparison ablation in Appendix G, so a reviewer concludes the headline gain is unsupported. The fix: promote a compact version into the main text near the claim, leave the full grid in the appendix, and add an appendix map. During discussion the authors upload a revision and label the changelog so the relocation is obvious.
Reviewer-pushback patterns
- "Key evidence is buried." Promote it; an appendix map is not a substitute for main-text placement.
- "Cannot tell what changed in the revision." Add a dated changelog at the top of the revised PDF.
- "Supplement leaks identity." Re-check file paths, license headers, and remotes before upload.
Output format
[Supplement plan] PDF appendix / ZIP / anonymous repo / private link / no supplement
[Main-text dependencies] <claims that must move back into main text>
[Reviewer navigation] <appendix map and file names>
[Anonymity risks] <paths, metadata, links, licenses>
[Discussion update note] <short changelog if revised>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:19
