colm-supplementary
GitHub指导COLM论文附录材料分配，区分需相信（正文）与复现（附录）的内容。涵盖提示词、配置、污染分析等放置规则及代码匿名化操作，确保主文承载核心论点，附录提供可审计的完整证据链。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill colm-supplementary -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "colm-supplementary",
"description": "Use when deciding what goes into a COLM paper's appendices and supplementary material versus the strict 9-page main text — verbatim prompts, full evaluation configurations, per-task result tables, contamination analyses, human-evaluation protocols, and anonymized code\/data packages that survive double-blind review."
}
COLM Supplementary Material
The 2026 format gives you a strict 9-page main text, unlimited citation pages, and appendix space whose guaranteed audience is nobody — reviewers may read it, the rebuttal may point into it, but no rule obliges anyone to open it. That asymmetry is the whole design principle: the main text carries every load-bearing element, and the supplement carries the audit trail that makes the main text checkable.
The placement rule
Ask of each artifact: is this needed to believe the claim, or to re-run it? Believe → main text. Re-run → appendix/supplement. Both → summarize in the main text, deposit fully in the appendix, and cross-reference in both directions.
| Artifact | Placement | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Representative prompt (or skeleton) | Main text | Readers cannot judge an LM evaluation without seeing how the model was asked |
| Full prompt set, verbatim, incl. system prompts | Appendix | Paraphrased prompts are not reproducible; include exact strings |
| Decoding configs per experiment | Appendix table | One row per reported table cell group (colm-experiments) |
| Contamination analysis method + results | Summary in main text; full in appendix | The conclusion is load-bearing; the n-gram machinery is audit trail |
| Per-task / per-model full result grids | Appendix | Main text shows the aggregate + the interesting slice |
| Human-eval protocol: instructions, pay, demographics, agreement | Appendix | Screenshots of annotator UI earn trust |
| Failure cases and transcripts | Appendix, curated | A dozen representative transcripts beat 400 raw ones |
| Code + data package | Supplementary upload / anonymized repo | Must be anonymous at submission (see below) |
| Raw API responses archive | Release artifact (acceptance) | Often too large for review upload; describe it and commit to release |
LM-specific supplement content reviewers actually use
Three appendix sections repeatedly decide borderline LM papers:
- The prompt appendix. Exact strings, exemplar counts, formatting whitespace included. Prompt paraphrase is a known variance source, so approximation here undermines every number.
- The "what we tried" ledger. Prompt variants and hyperparameters attempted per system — the fairness evidence for baseline comparisons.
- The contamination appendix. Overlap statistics per evaluation set, or the documented reason none could be computed.
Anonymization of the code/data package
COLM's instructions ban identity-revealing links, and supplements are the usual
leak. Before upload, scrub: repository remotes and commit author fields (git log
travels inside .git/), Hugging Face org names in from_pretrained(...) calls,
W&B entity names in configs, API org IDs in cached headers, absolute paths
(/home/<username>/...), and internal cluster hostnames.
# Build the review package from a clean export — never zip a working directory
git archive --format=tar HEAD | (mkdir -p /tmp/colm-pkg && tar -x -C /tmp/colm-pkg)
grep -rniE 'wandb|hf_[A-Za-z0-9]{20,}|api[_-]?key|/home/[a-z]|<lab-name>' /tmp/colm-pkg | head
grep -rlE 'from_pretrained\("[^"]*/' /tmp/colm-pkg --include='*.py' | head # org-scoped model IDs
(cd /tmp && zip -rq colm-supplement.zip colm-pkg -x '*.git*')
git archive (not cp -r) is the load-bearing choice: it cannot smuggle .git/,
untracked scratch files, or environment files into the package.
Referencing the supplement from the main text
- Point at specific anchors ("App. C.2, Table 9"), never "see appendix".
- In the rebuttal window (May 22 - June 8 in 2026), precise anchors let you answer a reviewer in one sentence plus a pointer — the highest-leverage use of everything you deposited.
- Do not promise supplement content that is not there; reviewers who follow a dangling pointer stop trusting the intact ones.
Ordering the appendix for the reader you hope exists
Appendices get opened with a question in hand, not read linearly. Order sections by the probability of the question:
- A. Experimental details — models, revisions, decoding configs, harness commit: the reproduction question.
- B. Prompts — verbatim, grouped by experiment: the "how did you ask" question.
- C. Contamination analysis — the trust question.
- D. Full results — per-task, per-model grids: the "does it hold on X" question.
- E. Baseline tuning ledger — the fairness question.
- F. Human/judge evaluation protocol — instructions, agreement, biases.
- G. Failure analysis — curated transcripts.
- H. Compute — the cost question.
Within each, lead with a two-line summary of what the section shows — the reviewer deciding whether to trust an unread appendix trusts one with visible structure. And keep appendix numbering frozen after submission: the rebuttal will cite "App. C.2" and a renumbered revision breaks every pointer in the discussion thread.
What not to include
- Anything load-bearing that appears only in the supplement — if the 9 pages
cannot make the case alone, restructure (
colm-writing-style). - Un-curated dumps (every transcript, every checkpoint) — volume without curation reads as evasion.
- Data whose license or ToS forbids redistribution — describe it and state the
restriction instead (
colm-artifact-evaluation). - 待核实: no supplementary size cap was verifiable for 2026; check the OpenReview form's actual limits rather than assuming.
Timing note for the 2026-style calendar
In 2026 the supplement traveled with the paper at the March 31 deadline — no
separate later upload was posted (待核实 whether future cycles add one). Plan
accordingly: the anonymization sweep and package build belong in deadline week's
T-3 slot (colm-submission), not in an imagined grace period. And because the
May 22 - June 8 rebuttal leans on appendix anchors, whatever you deposit in March
is the ammunition you will fight with in June — deposit for your future self, who
will be tired and have eighteen days.
Output format
[Placement audit] load-bearing content in supplement? none / move up: <items>
[Prompt appendix] verbatim + system prompts ▢ [Tried-ledger] ▢ [Contamination appendix] ▢
[Anonymity scan] clean / hits: <files>
[Pointer integrity] all anchors resolve / dangling: <refs>
[Package] built via clean export ▢ size: <n> MB (cap 待核实)
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:40
