Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ieee-international-conference-on-robot-and-human-interactive-communication
ieee-international-conference-on-robot-and-human-interactive-communication
GitHub用于评估稿件是否适合IEEE RO-MAN会议，提供定位、框架调整、证据审查、提交周期检查及拒稿风险分析，辅助机器人-人类交互领域的投稿策略。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定RO-MAN为目标会议
需进行会议适配性评估
需将期刊或arXiv风格重构为CS会议叙事
需要证据缺口、匿名性或反驳策略诊断
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ieee-international-conference-on-robot-and-human-interactive-communication -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ieee-international-conference-on-robot-and-human-interactive-communication",
"description": "Use when targeting IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) 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 human-robot communication."
}
IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)
Conference positioning
IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) is a top computer-science conference venue for robot-human communication, social behavior, assistive robotics, interaction design, and evaluation. It rewards a robot-interaction paper where communication behavior and human evidence are central. 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 RO-MAN / IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication as the target venue.
- A manuscript in robot-human communication 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: robot-human communication, social behavior, assistive robotics, interaction design, and evaluation.
- 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 RO-MAN'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 RO-MAN as a human-robot communication 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: robot-human communication, social behavior, assistive robotics, interaction design, and evaluation.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: robot-human, communication, social, behavior, assistive, robotics, interaction, design, evaluation, venue-specific, contribution, human-robot, ieee-ras.
- Official anchor domain: www.ieee-ras.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 human-robot communication and the author can say why RO-MAN reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
robotics-science-and-systems(RSS),acm-ieee-international-conference-on-human-robot-interaction(HRI),ieee- international-conference-on-automation-science-and-engineering(CASE),international- symposium-on-robotics-research(ISRR). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from www.ieee-ras.org.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What RO-MAN is. The IEEE symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication — social and cognitive human–robot interaction, dialogue, trust, and interaction studies.
- vs CASE. CASE is industrial automation science & engineering — an entirely different audience; route interaction studies here, automation-systems work there.
- vs ACM/IEEE HRI. HRI is the other major HRI venue; differentiate by community and cycle, and send pure perception/control to ICRA/IROS.
RO-MAN-specific routing detail
- Prefer RO-MAN when the contribution depends on human-robot communication, social signals, dialogue, trust calibration, assistive interaction, user study design, or interaction behavior.
- Route manufacturing/logistics automation and scheduling systems to CASE; route general robotics control/perception to ICRA/IROS/RSS when human interaction is not central.
- RO-MAN evidence should include participant protocol, interaction measures, robot behavior, communication failure cases, and ethical handling of human-subject context.
Method & evidence bar
- Report hardware, simulation, environment, task distribution, reset procedure, and failure cases; embodied evidence must be inspectable.
- Compare against meaningful robot-learning, planning, or control baselines under matched assumptions.
- Separate simulation gains from real-world transfer and quantify reliability, not only best-case success.
- For RO-MAN, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a robot-interaction paper where communication behavior and human evidence are central.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Lead with the robot task and system constraint before the algorithmic component.
- Use video or supplementary material only as allowed by the current anonymous-review policy.
- 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://ro-man2026.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: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
- 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 RO-MAN, 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 human-robot communication 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
- Simulation-only evidence for a claim about real robots.
- No clear task distribution, few trials, or missing failure analysis.
- A learning curve without robot-specific insight or system integration.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving RO-MAN reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses RO-MAN's bar, compare against ieee-international-conference-on-robotics-and-automation / ieee-rsj-international-conference-on-intelligent-robots-and-systems / robotics-science-and-systems / conference-on-robot-learning. 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] IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)
[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 12:43
