Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› sigdial-conference-on-discourse-and-dialogue
sigdial-conference-on-discourse-and-dialogue
GitHub用于评估论文是否适合SIGDIAL会议，提供投稿策略、定位重构、证据标准及拒稿风险分析。辅助作者将手稿调整为符合该对话系统顶会的叙事风格，并检查匿名、 artifacts 和反驳准备等细节。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定SIGDIAL为目标投稿 venue
需对对话类手稿进行会前适配性评估
需将期刊或arXiv稿件重构为CS会议风格
需要诊断证据缺口、匿名规范或反驳策略
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sigdial-conference-on-discourse-and-dialogue -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "sigdial-conference-on-discourse-and-dialogue",
"description": "Use when targeting SIGDIAL Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL) 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 dialogue systems."
}
SIGDIAL Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL)
Conference positioning
SIGDIAL Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL) is a top computer-science conference venue for dialogue, discourse, conversational agents, interaction, evaluation, and spoken/written communication. It rewards a dialogue paper with interaction-aware evaluation rather than isolated text-generation examples. 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 SIGDIAL / SIGDIAL Conference on Discourse and Dialogue as the target venue.
- A manuscript in dialogue 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: dialogue, discourse, conversational agents, interaction, evaluation, and spoken/written communication.
- 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 SIGDIAL'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 SIGDIAL as a dialogue systems 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: dialogue, discourse, conversational agents, interaction, evaluation, and spoken/written communication.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: dialogue, discourse, conversational, agents, interaction, evaluation, spoken, written, communication, venue-specific, contribution, sigdial.
- Official anchor domain: www.sigdial.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 dialogue systems and the author can say why SIGDIAL reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
european-chapter-of-the- association-for-computational-linguistics(EACL),international-natural-language- generation-conference(INLG),joint-international-conference-on-computational-linguistics- language-resources-and-evaluation(LREC-COLING),starsem-conference-on-computational- semantics(*SEM). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from www.sigdial.org.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What SIGdial is. The SIGdial venue for discourse and dialogue (NLP) — dialogue systems, conversational modeling, discourse structure.
- Real neighbors. ACL / EMNLP / NAACL (NLP family) and IEEE SLT (spoken dialogue) — not systems/storage venues.
- Routing. Send conversational-AI/discourse work here; general NLP to the ACL family.
SIGDIAL-specific routing detail
- Prefer SIGDIAL when the contribution is dialogue state, turn-taking, discourse structure, spoken/written interaction, conversational evaluation, or user-facing agent behavior.
- Route storage/file-system reliability and persistence work to FAST; route generic generation without interaction structure to INLG or ACL-family venues.
- SIGDIAL evidence should evaluate conversation-level behavior, interaction breakdowns, dialogue policy, annotation reliability, and human or simulated-user protocol.
Method & evidence bar
- Build the artifact or prototype far enough that the core design can be measured under realistic workloads.
- Use appropriate baselines, sensitivity analyses, and workload characterization; systems reviewers look for hidden bottlenecks.
- Separate engineering effort from research contribution: name the abstraction, mechanism, or tradeoff.
- For SIGDIAL, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a dialogue paper with interaction-aware evaluation rather than isolated text-generation examples.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Start from a systems pain point and show why existing abstractions fail.
- Use evaluation sections that answer research questions, not a tour of every benchmark run.
- 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://www.sigdial.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: ARR/START/ACL Rolling Review or the current ACL-family submission portal, plus ACLPUB formatting when applicable.
- 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 SIGDIAL, 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 dialogue systems 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
- Toy implementation or microbenchmark-only evidence for a systems claim.
- No comparison to mature systems or no explanation of deployment constraints.
- Performance gains with unclear workload representativeness.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving SIGDIAL reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses SIGDIAL's bar, compare against acm-symposium-on-operating-systems-principles / usenix-symposium-on-operating-systems-design-and-implementation / usenix-symposium-on-networked-systems-design-and-implementation / acm-sigcomm. 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] SIGDIAL Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL)
[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 12:46
