Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› cav-writing-style
cav-writing-style
GitHub指导CAV论文修订，强调首页明确验证贡献与形式化保证（如健全性/完备性），规范定理证明、可证伪的实验基准声明及双盲匿名格式，防止论文沦为缺乏理论支撑的系统演示。
Trigger Scenarios
修改CAV会议论文
撰写形式化验证相关学术文章
检查论文是否包含明确的正确性证明
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cav-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "cav-writing-style",
"description": "Use when revising a CAV (Computer Aided Verification) paper for a precise verification contribution on the first page, an explicit soundness\/completeness statement, theorem-and-proof discipline in the LNCS page budget, fair benchmark claims, honest scope and limits, and double-blind wording for the anonymized categories."
}
CAV Writing Style
Use this when revising the main paper. CAV papers are Springer LNCS chapters read by verification researchers, so they need a precise verification contribution stated on the first page and a formal guarantee a reviewer can check. The failure this skill prevents is a technically fine paper that reads like a systems demo or a heuristic with a benchmark table but no stated property.
Revision rules
- Lead with the verification contribution and its guarantee: the problem (what property, of what system), why current methods fall short, the contribution (technique and/or tool), what is formally guaranteed (soundness, completeness, an equisatisfiability/refinement claim), the benchmark evidence, and the scope.
- State the formal claim precisely. Name the property, the assumptions, and the theorem. A paper whose "contribution" is only "faster on benchmarks" with no guarantee reads as a tool note, not a Regular Paper.
- Give proofs their place. Key proofs go in the body; long proofs may go to a clearly-marked
appendix — but reviewers are not obliged to read appendices, so the proof idea must be in the
body (see
cav-supplementary). - Make benchmark claims falsifiable. Every empirical claim names the benchmark set (with
revision), the baseline tools and versions, and the resource limits (time/memory) — adjectives
like "significantly faster" without these are not evidence (see
cav-experiments). - State scope and limits as your own, not as a closing apology. Say which logics, system sizes, or property classes the method covers and where it stops. Over-claimed generality is the fastest way to lose a verification reviewer's trust.
- Maintain double-blind wording for Regular and Application papers: anonymize self-citations, the tool/solver name, benchmark paths, acknowledgements, and repository links. (Tool and Industrial papers are not anonymized.)
Verification-paper skeleton
| Section | Job it must do | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Intro | Problem, inadequacy, contribution, the guarantee, benchmark preview, scope — first page | Leads with "SMT/model checking is important," not a precise problem |
| Preliminaries | The formal setting: logic, semantics, the property class | Notation dumped without motivating the model |
| Approach | The technique/algorithm, stated so it can be re-implemented | Algorithm described too thinly to reproduce |
| Correctness | The theorem(s) and proof idea; soundness/completeness | A "clearly sound" claim with no argument |
| Evaluation | Benchmarks, baselines, resource limits, per-instance data | "Strong results" with no set revision or limits |
| Related work | Delta-first positioning against the verification literature | Citation catalog with no contrast |
Sentence-level rewrites
| Draft pattern | CAV-safe rewrite |
|---|---|
| "Our tool is significantly faster." | "solves N previously-timed-out instances and reduces mean time by X% on the fixed-revision |
| "Our method is sound." | "Theorem 1: the procedure preserves equisatisfiability under |
| "We evaluate on standard benchmarks." | "We evaluate on the |
| "Our approach scales." | "runs to completion on instances up to <size/metric>; beyond that, |
| "The solver handles all cases." | Claim scoped to the logic/theory and property class actually supported |
Correctness-and-scope discipline
[Guarantee] name the property (sound? complete? terminating?) and the assumptions it needs
[Proof] proof idea in the body; full proof in the body or a clearly-marked appendix
[Checkability] where possible, emit a witness/certificate a reviewer can independently check
[Scope] state the logics/theories/system-sizes/property-classes covered — and the boundary
-> put the limit next to the claim, not only in a closing paragraph
Vignette: compressing a technique-plus-tool paper
A draft with a long preliminaries section, three theorems, and a sprawling evaluation: keep the motivating problem and the main soundness theorem with its proof idea in the body; move two supporting lemmas' full proofs and the per-instance benchmark table to the appendix/artifact with explicit forward references; keep the headline benchmark comparison (with limits) in the body. The test of a good cut: a reviewer should be able to answer "what is guaranteed, and how much faster/more capable is it, under what budget?" from the body alone.
Output format
[Writing diagnosis] clear / no-stated-guarantee / over-claimed / unfalsifiable-benchmarks / over-scoped
[First-page fix] <new framing leading with the contribution and its guarantee>
[Claim audit] <claim -> theorem or benchmark evidence -> where -> falsifiable? yes/no>
[Scope fix] <the boundary to state next to the claim>
[Anonymity edits] <tool/solver names / self-citations / benchmark paths to rewrite (if anonymized)>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:38
