Aistats writing style
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/AISTATS-Skills/skills/aistats-writing-style
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aistats-writing-styleAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when revising an AISTATS paper for concise AI-statistics framing, theorem-and-experiment clarity, 8-page two-column compression, double-blind wording, reproducibility clarity, statistically careful claims, and assumption-labeling discipline that survives statistician reviewers.
SKILL.md
3.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
AISTATS Writing Style
Use this when revising the main paper. AISTATS papers need compact statements of why a statistical or ML contribution matters and enough detail for technical validation.
Revision rules
- Put the AI/statistics contribution in the first page: problem, gap, method or theorem, evidence, and why existing methods are insufficient.
- Make assumptions explicit. AISTATS reviewers are sensitive to hidden distributional, asymptotic, optimization, or data-generating assumptions.
- Pair every major claim with either proof structure, simulation design, empirical table, or reproducibility detail.
- Use the 8-page body for core logic; move long derivations, extra simulations, and extended ablations to the appendix without making the main paper unintelligible.
- Avoid overclaiming empirical wins when differences are small or variance is unreported.
- Maintain double-blind style in self-citations, prior code references, acknowledgements, funding, and artifact descriptions.
Theorem-presentation discipline
- Number assumptions and cite them by label inside every theorem statement; AISTATS readers audit assumption flows the way software reviewers audit imports.
- Give each major theorem a proof sketch in the body; the appendix proof supports the sketch but never replaces it.
- Keep problem-dependent constants visible or explicitly deferred; silently absorbing dimension or condition numbers into O-notation is a standing statistician complaint.
- Define notation once in one location — two-column pages punish redundant redefinition.
- Phrase remarks after theorems as interpretation, not as extra unproved claims; AISTATS reviewers treat every declarative sentence near a theorem as something they may verify.
- When a result is conjectured or only empirically supported, label it so; mixing proved and observed statements in one paragraph is a credibility leak at this venue.
Sentence-level rewrites
| Draft pattern | AISTATS-safe rewrite |
|---|---|
| "Our method significantly outperforms..." | "reduces mean error by X (SE Y) over Z seeded runs" |
| "Under mild conditions..." | "Under Assumptions 1-3 (boundedness, ...)" |
| "It is easy to see that..." | "By Lemma 2 and the triangle inequality..." |
| "Achieves state-of-the-art..." | Claim scoped to the regimes actually tested |
Vignette: compressing into eight two-column pages
A draft with three theorems, six figures, and a sprawling related-work section: keep all theorem statements, one sketch each, and the two decision-critical figures (the rate plot and the coverage plot); compress related work into contribution contrasts; move secondary lemmas and four figures to the appendix with explicit forward references. The test of a good cut: a reviewer should reconstruct the whole argument without ever opening the supplement.
Output format
[Writing diagnosis] clear / under-justified / overclaimed / overloaded
[First-page fix] <new framing>
[Claim discipline] <claim -> proof/experiment/limitation>
[Compression cuts] <move/delete/merge>
[Anonymity edits] <phrases to rewrite>