neurips-workflow
GitHubNeurIPS论文全流程路由技能，涵盖选题、写作、实验、预提交审计、审稿诊断、反驳及最终发布。通过阶段映射和关键截止日期倒排计划，确保符合双盲评审、清单要求及轨道政策，规避提交前的合规与证据漏洞。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill neurips-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "neurips-workflow",
"description": "Use when planning and sequencing a full NeurIPS manuscript workflow from topic and track selection through writing, the mandatory Paper Checklist, OpenReview submission, double-blind review, author response, decision, camera-ready, artifact release, and rerouting to the Datasets & Benchmarks track, a workshop, or MLRC\/TMLR."
}
NeurIPS Workflow
Use this skill as the router for the NeurIPS depth pack. It helps choose the next skill and stage the work so a manuscript does not arrive at submission with hidden policy or evidence gaps.
NeurIPS is a conference, not a journal: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition General Chairs and Program Chairs (2026 General Chairs: Hsuan-Tien Lin and Razvan Pascanu, verified 2026-06-22), and the cost model is registration fees, not APCs — proceedings are open-access on OpenReview. Conference organizers rotate yearly, so re-check the current CFP and committees page rather than carrying a name forward.
Stage map
- Topic and track fit: use
neurips-topic-selection. - Paper shaping: use
neurips-writing-style,neurips-related-work, andneurips-experiments. - Artifact and supplement planning: use
neurips-artifact-evaluation,neurips-reproducibility, andneurips-supplementary. - Final pre-submission audit: use
neurips-submission. - Review diagnosis: use
neurips-review-process. - Rebuttal and discussion: use
neurips-author-response. - Acceptance and public release: use
neurips-camera-ready.
Operating principles
- Start official-source checks early; NeurIPS annual policies change.
- Keep track choice explicit. A main-track method paper, E&D paper, position paper, and MLRC paper are not interchangeable.
- Write the checklist in parallel with the paper rather than at the end.
- Maintain one evidence table mapping every central claim to proof, experiment, data, artifact, and limitation.
- Keep an anonymous review artifact and a de-anonymized public release artifact as separate states.
Deadline ladder to schedule backward from
NeurIPS spreads its gates across the year, so plan backward from the abstract deadline, not the full-paper deadline. The exact dates move every cycle; reopen the current CFP and Main Track Handbook for the live calendar.
| Gate | What locks here | Skill to finish before it |
|---|---|---|
| OpenReview profiles | every author needs an active, complete profile | neurips-submission |
| Abstract deadline | title, abstract, and author list freeze (order may change after) | neurips-topic-selection, neurips-related-work |
| Full-paper deadline | PDF, checklist, and code/data ZIP submitted together | neurips-experiments, neurips-supplementary |
| Reviews released | nothing changes; you read and triage | neurips-review-process |
| Author-response window | rebuttal through OpenReview, no new paper version | neurips-author-response |
| Decision | accept (spotlight/poster) or reject | neurips-camera-ready if accepted |
| Camera-ready | de-anonymize, finalize checklist, public artifacts | neurips-camera-ready, neurips-artifact-evaluation |
Track-fork early warning
Decide the track before drafting, because the Datasets & Benchmarks track, Position Papers track, and
MLRC/TMLR reproducibility route each have a distinct call, checklist emphasis, and review rubric. A
dataset paper forced into the main track, or a reproduction study that belongs in MLRC, wastes a full
cycle. If neurips-topic-selection flags a fork, resolve it before any other stage.
Worked vignette: where this router intervenes
A team has strong benchmark wins for a new retrieval method but no mechanism analysis and a thin
limitations paragraph. The router routes them to neurips-experiments (add ablations and error
analysis) and neurips-writing-style (calibrate the claim and the limitations) before
neurips-submission, rather than letting a leaderboard-only paper reach OpenReview where reviewers
predictably ask for the missing mechanism.
Output format
[Current stage] topic / drafting / pre-submission / review / rebuttal / camera-ready / reroute
[Next skill] <one NeurIPS skill>
[Official source to open] <CFP/handbook/template/OpenReview/checklist>
[Blocking gap] <policy/evidence/artifact/writing>
[Next action] <concrete task>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:07
