Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› itcs-writing-style
itcs-writing-style
GitHub指导撰写ITCS论文摘要与引言，强调在定理前突显概念创新。要求将模型作为新视角而非微调，明确动机、贡献及局限性，以契合该会议重思想轻深度的评审偏好。
Trigger Scenarios
撰写ITCS论文的摘要或引言
修改ITCS论文的技术陈述以突出创新性
调整论文结构以符合ITCS写作风格
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill itcs-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "itcs-writing-style",
"description": "Use when drafting or revising an ITCS paper's abstract, introduction, and technical presentation so the conceptual innovation lands before any theorem, the model is motivated as a lens rather than a tweak, scope and limitations are owned up front, and complete proofs are deferred cleanly — matching the ITCS emphasis on new ideas over technical depth."
}
ITCS Writing Style
At ITCS the reader must feel the innovation before the theorem. Reviewers are briefed to
reward a new model, question, or connection over a deeper result on an old one, so a paper that
opens like a STOC depth paper — leading with a bound and a technique — reads as if it mistook the
venue. The whole job of the first pages is to make a skeptical expert think "I hadn't thought to
ask that, and I want to" before they reach a single lemma. Because ITCS has no rebuttal
(see itcs-review-process), the writing must also pre-empt
objections there is no later chance to answer.
The ITCS first-page arc
Structure the abstract and introduction as:
- The new question or model — the first breath. Name the object or ask the question the standard setting cannot phrase. Not "we study X with parameter Y," but "here is a thing worth thinking about that we did not have a way to talk about."
- Why the field lacked it — isolate the silent assumption or missing seam that hid the
question. This is the honest delta (see
itcs-related-work). - The conceptual payoff — what the new lens lets us see or do: a connection, a reorganization of known questions, a new axis of measurement.
- A result that shows the model is alive — at least one crisp theorem (a separation, a surprising possibility, an impossibility) proving the model is neither empty nor everything. ITCS PCs probe every new model for exactly this.
- Scope and directions — own what is unresolved and frame the open problems as the deliverable. At ITCS a candid "first map" beats a polished increment.
See the before/after in
../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.
Lead with the idea, not the machinery
- State the contribution as a new noun. "We introduce forgetful certificates" beats "we analyze memory-bounded provers." A named object the community can adopt is the ITCS currency.
- Motivate the model as a lens, not a tweak. Do not write "we add a bound"; write what the bound reveals. The move that earns ITCS acceptance is showing the new setting makes an old thing look different.
- Spend the abstract's real estate on why-it-matters, not on constants. "Improving the constant" or "tightening the bound" is a depth-venue virtue; at ITCS it can actively signal the wrong fit. Report the result, then immediately its conceptual consequence.
- Do not over-claim finality. ITCS respects a bold, incomplete direction. Overselling a first foray as the last word invites the reviewer to test it as one and find the gaps.
The first-10-pages merits window
ITCS submissions have no hard page limit, but the community norm (stated in the call) is that the first ~10 pages give a clear, self-contained presentation of the paper's merits, significance, innovations, and place in the literature, with complete proofs following (in an appendix if needed). Treat those ten pages as the document a busy PC member actually reads to decide:
- The model, the motivation, the main results, and the why-new must all fit and cohere there.
- Proof ideas (a paragraph of intuition per main theorem) belong here; full proofs can defer.
- Do not bury the innovation on page 14 behind preliminaries — if the merits are not legible by page 10, the paper is effectively judged as if they are absent.
Pre-empting objections (because there is no rebuttal)
Write the three reviewer objections into the paper:
- "Is the model trivial or all-powerful?" -> the anchoring result in the intro, and a remark placing your model between two known extremes.
- "Is this actually new?" -> a delta-first related-work paragraph that names the closest prior model and says exactly what it did not ask (not a citation dump).
- "Why should the community care?" -> a concrete payoff: a connection drawn, a question reframed, an application sketched — even if informal.
Technical presentation
- Definitions before use, self-contained. A reviewer should parse every theorem statement without your prior papers open — which lightweight double-blind would expose anyway.
- One idea per definition. Resist bundling three parameters into a mega-definition; ITCS readers value a clean object they can carry away.
- Proof intuition in the body, full proofs deferred cleanly. Each main theorem gets a "proof sketch / idea" paragraph in the merits window; the complete proof lives later or in an appendix, clearly cross-referenced. Never write "the proof is standard" for a central claim.
- Keep the open problems as a real section. At ITCS they are part of the contribution — a good open-problems section is an invitation the community accepts by working on your model.
Common failure modes at ITCS
| Symptom | Why it fails here | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract leads with a bound/technique | Reads as a STOC depth paper; the idea is hidden | Lead with the new question/model |
| New model with no result | "Definition in search of a theorem" | Add an anchoring result showing it is alive |
| "New" question is a known one relabeled | Novelty is the selection axis; a rename fails it | Do the honest delta; find the truly new seam |
| Merits not legible by page 10 | The window the PC reads shows nothing | Restructure so model+motivation+results fit early |
| Over-claimed finality on a first foray | Invites the reviewer to find the gaps | Own the scope; frame open problems as the point |
| Central proof marked "omitted"/"standard" | Violates the full-proof requirement | Include the complete proof (appendix if needed) |
Output format
[ITCS framing status] innovation-first / buried / mis-venued
[First breath] does p.1 pose a NEW question/model before any theorem? yes/no
[Alive] anchoring result present (not empty / not everything)? yes/no
[Merits window] model+motivation+results legible within ~10 pages? yes/no
[Objections pre-empted] trivial? / new? / why-care? all answered in-text? yes/no
[Proofs] every central claim fully proved (appendix ok)? yes/no
[Fix queue] <ordered edits>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 16:07
