Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› european-conference-on-computer-vision
european-conference-on-computer-vision
GitHub针对ECCV投稿的辅助工具，评估论文契合度、重构叙事框架、诊断证据缺口与拒稿风险。涵盖定位、审稿人视角及近邻路由建议，需结合最新官方指南使用，非正式提交替代品。
触发场景
作者指定ECCV为目标会议
需评估CS手稿是否适合该 venue
将期刊或arXiv风格重构为会议叙事
需要证据、匿名性、反驳策略诊断
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill european-conference-on-computer-vision -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "european-conference-on-computer-vision",
"description": "Use when targeting European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) 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 computer vision flagship."
}
European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)
Conference positioning
European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) is a top computer-science conference venue for European computer vision across learning, geometry, perception, generation, and applications. It rewards a strong CV paper suited to a broad computer-vision audience and current ECCV review policies. 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 ECCV / European Conference on Computer Vision as the target venue.
- A manuscript in European computer vision across learning 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: European computer vision across learning, geometry, perception, generation, and applications.
- 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 ECCV'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: Read reviewers as CV specialists. Strong ablations, dataset protocols, qualitative failures, and current vision baselines are mandatory.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: European computer vision across learning, geometry, perception, generation, and applications.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: european, vision, across, learning, geometry, perception, generation, applications, venue-specific, contribution, flagship, eccv, ecva.
- Official anchor domain: eccv.ecva.net. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Route to ECCV when the paper is a computer-vision contribution and the current cycle/community fit makes the European vision flagship the right target.
- Do not distinguish ECCV from ICCV/CVPR by prestige alone. Match the live cycle, topic area, benchmark culture, and reviewer expectations; use WACV/ACCV/BMVC for different scope or timing.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What ECCV is. The European Conference on Computer Vision, held biennially in even years, Springer proceedings.
- vs ICCV. ICCV (IEEE/CVF) is the odd-year biennial counterpart; together with the annual CVPR they are the vision big-three.
- Routing. Send applied/winter work to WACV and regional work to ACCV; ECCV is a flagship general-vision venue.
ECCV-specific routing detail
- Prefer ECCV when the contribution is computer vision with the European flagship community/cycle as the right fit: recognition, geometry, learning, video, 3D vision, or vision-language.
- Route late-year international flagship vision work to ICCV, North American cycle work to CVPR, and application-specific imaging to ISBI/MICCAI when biomedical validation dominates.
- ECCV evidence should include strong baselines, dataset protocol, ablations, qualitative failure cases, and positioning against current vision literature.
Method & evidence bar
- Use current vision baselines, strong ablations, dataset-specific protocols, and qualitative examples that reveal failure modes.
- Keep the anonymous submission self-contained; external material should follow the current-cycle policy exactly.
- For generated or foundation-model outputs, show robustness, data provenance, and evaluation beyond cherry-picked visuals.
- For ECCV, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a strong CV paper suited to a broad computer-vision audience and current ECCV review policies.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Lead with the visual problem and the technical insight; then prove it across datasets, metrics, and ablations.
- Make figures do work: pipeline, qualitative wins/failures, and compact quantitative comparisons.
- 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://eccv.ecva.net/
- 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: the current CVF/ECCV/CMT/OpenReview author kit and anonymity policy.
- 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 ECCV, 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 computer vision flagship 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
- A thin architecture tweak with marginal gains and no analysis.
- Using non-comparable baselines, private data splits, or hidden external links that violate review policy.
- Ethics, consent, or biometric/medical claims handled as boilerplate rather than as real constraints.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving ECCV reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses ECCV's bar, compare against computer-vision-and-pattern-recognition / international-conference-on-computer-vision / winter-conference-on-applications-of-computer-vision / asian-conference-on-computer-vision. 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] European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)
[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>
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:42
