Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› acm-international-conference-on-mobile-human-computer-interaction
acm-international-conference-on-mobile-human-computer-interaction
GitHub用于评估论文是否符合MobileHCI会议标准，提供定位、重构建议及拒稿风险分析。适用于目标投稿、适配性审查、格式转换及证据缺口诊断，辅助制定提交策略。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定MobileHCI为目标投稿 venue
需在格式化前进行计算机科学的会议适配度评估
需将期刊或arXiv风格稿件重构为CS会议叙事
需要针对该会议的证据缺口、匿名性、成果物或反驳策略进行诊断
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acm-international-conference-on-mobile-human-computer-interaction -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "acm-international-conference-on-mobile-human-computer-interaction",
"description": "Use when targeting ACM International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for mobile HCI."
}
ACM International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI)
Conference positioning
ACM International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI) is a top computer-science conference venue for mobile interaction, wearable interfaces, on-device sensing, mobile user studies, and interaction design. It rewards a mobile interaction paper with device-specific constraints and user evidence. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
- The author names MobileHCI / ACM International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction as the target venue.
- A manuscript in mobile interaction needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: mobile interaction, wearable interfaces, on-device sensing, mobile user studies, and interaction design.
- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
- The paper should explain why the result matters to MobileHCI's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
- Reviewer lens: Treat MobileHCI as a mobile HCI venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: mobile interaction, wearable interfaces, on-device sensing, mobile user studies, and interaction design.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: mobile, interaction, wearable, interfaces, on-device, sensing, user, studies, design, venue-specific, contribution, mobilehci.
- Official anchor domain: mobilehci.acm.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in mobile HCI and the author can say why MobileHCI reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
acm-conference-on-intelligent-user- interfaces(IUI),acm-international-joint-conference-on-pervasive-and-ubiquitous- computing(UbiComp),acm-international-conference-on-tangible-embedded-and-embodied- interaction(TEI),acm-sigaccess-conference-on-computers-and-accessibility(ASSETS). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from mobilehci.acm.org.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What MobileHCI is. The ACM Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction — interaction on mobile and wearable devices.
- vs IUI. IUI centers AI-driven intelligent interfaces; MobileHCI centers mobile interaction contexts.
- Real neighbors. CHI (broad HCI), UbiComp (pervasive/sensing), MobiSys (mobile systems).
MobileHCI-specific routing detail
- Prefer MobileHCI when the contribution is mobile interaction: phones, tablets, wearables, on-the-go use, mobile input/output, app experience, or mobility-shaped user behavior.
- Route intelligent/adaptive interface mechanisms to IUI when model behavior is the core claim, and pervasive sensing deployments to UbiComp when infrastructure/context awareness dominates.
- MobileHCI evidence should include mobile context, device constraints, field or mobility realism, interaction measures, battery/privacy considerations, and user-experience tradeoffs.
Method & evidence bar
- Match the contribution type to the evidence: controlled study, field deployment, design inquiry, technical system, dataset, or theory.
- Report participants, recruitment, analysis method, consent/ethics, and limitations with enough detail for HCI review.
- For AI-infused interfaces, evaluate both model behavior and user experience; either alone is usually insufficient.
- For MobileHCI, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a mobile interaction paper with device-specific constraints and user evidence.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Explain who benefits, what interaction changes, and what design knowledge the paper contributes.
- Avoid treating users as a decoration for a technical system; the human evidence has to shape the claim.
- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://mobilehci.acm.org/
- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
- Confirm the review workflow and portal: the current ACM PCS/Precision Conference author guide and contribution-type policy.
- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at MobileHCI, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
- The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
- Related work includes the nearest current-cycle mobile HCI papers and explains the technical delta.
- The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
- The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Underpowered or poorly matched user study for an ambitious design claim.
- Novel interface demo without contribution to interaction knowledge.
- Ethics, accessibility, or community context handled superficially.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving MobileHCI reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses MobileHCI's bar, compare against acm-chi-conference-on-human-factors-in-computing-systems / acm-symposium-on-user-interface-software-and-technology / acm-conference-on-computer-supported-cooperative-work-and-social-computing / acm-conference-on-intelligent-user-interfaces. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:39
