icalp-artifact-evaluation
Use to understand why ICALP (EATCS) has no artifact-evaluation track or badge scheme, and what plays the equivalent role for a pure-theory paper — the full version with complete proofs, reproducible computational certificates, and optional machine formalization — so authors coming from a systems/ML venue do not waste effort building an artifact ICALP does not evaluate.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# ICALP Artifact Evaluation (there isn't one — and what replaces it) Read this first if you are arriving from a venue with an artifact track. **ICALP has no artifact evaluation, no artifact-evaluation committee, and no ACM/IEEE badges.** It is a **pure theoretical computer science** venue: the contribution is a theorem, and the "artifact" a referee cares about is the **proof**. Building a Docker image, a benchmark harness, or a reproducibility capsule for an ICALP submission is effort spent on something no one will evaluate — and can even signal that the paper is mis-routed. ## Why no artifact track - ICALP results are **mathematical**: correctness is established by a proof a referee checks, not by running code on a machine. - The community norm and the LIPIcs open-access model center the **published proof and the full version**, not a software deliverable. - Contrast the software-engineering / systems / ML world (ACM/IEEE Available–Functional–Reusable– Reproduced badges, or ML reproducibility checklists): those exist because the contribution *is* a system or an empirical result. At ICALP it is not. ## What plays the artifact's role | Systems/ML artifact concept | ICALP equivalent
- Why no artifact track
- What plays the artifact's role
- When your paper DOES contain software
- Do not
- Output format
What does the icalp-artifact-evaluation skill do?
Use to understand why ICALP (EATCS) has no artifact-evaluation track or badge scheme, and what plays the equivalent role for a pure-theory paper — the full version with complete proofs, reproducible computational certificates, and optional machine formalization — so authors coming from a systems/ML venue do not waste effort building an artifact ICALP does not evaluate.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 984 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.