agentsclimarketplace

Fse reproducibility

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/FSE-Skills/skills/fse-reproducibility

Use when strengthening ESEC/FSE reproducibility and open-science evidence, covering the Data Availability statement, anonymized-but-runnable artifacts, provenance pinning for mining and LLM studies, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between what the paper says and what the artifact contains.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill fse-reproducibility

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

4.7 KB, 958 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

FSE Reproducibility

Use this before submission and again before camera-ready. FSE's open-science posture makes reproducibility a scored dimension, not a courtesy: the double-anonymous review already expects an inspectable artifact, and the PACMSE camera-ready expects a permanent one. The goal is that a competent reader could rebuild your evidence and reach your conclusions.

Evidence map

  • Map each research-question answer, technique claim, and reported number to a verifiable location — a paper section, a table generated from logged data, or a script in the artifact.
  • For techniques, give enough of the algorithm, parameters, and environment that a reader could re-implement or re-run it.
  • For empirical studies, report subjects and their selection, data collection, preprocessing, metrics, statistics, and the analysis scripts.
  • Keep the Data Availability statement truthful and specific: what is shared, where it will live after acceptance, and — if something cannot be shared — exactly why.
  • Keep the paper and the artifact consistent: a number in the PDF that no script in the artifact produces is the contradiction reviewers read as carelessness.

Data Availability statement audit

Claim in the paperWeak availability answerFSE-ready answer
"We study N projects""Dataset available on request"Anonymized archive of the exact project list + extraction scripts
"Our tool detects X""Code will be released"Anonymized, runnable tool with a README and a small demo input
"We interviewed P developers"Nothing (privacy cited vaguely)Anonymized codebook, protocol, and aggregate data; stated ethics limits
"The model produced Y"Live API describedCached prompts and raw responses, model IDs and dates

"Available on request" is treated as not available at FSE; convert every such line into a concrete, anonymized artifact or an explicit, justified exception.

Provenance pinning

[Mining]   pin repository SHAs; record corpus extraction date; archive the extracted dataset,
           not just the query; document fork/duplicate/bot handling
[LLM]      record exact model identifiers + access dates; cache raw inputs and outputs; report
           sampling settings; prefer post-training-cutoff subjects to bound contamination
[Compute]  state hardware, runtime, and number of runs so a reader can size a reproduction
[Randomness] log seeds for any stochastic step; say what is and is not deterministic

Degrees of reproducibility (state the one you achieved)

  • Turnkey: one documented command regenerates each table/figure from logged data.
  • Scripted: scripts exist but require documented manual steps or external data access.
  • Descriptive: prose detailed enough that a competent reader could rebuild the pipeline.

For FSE, aim turnkey for anything a reviewer might rerun quickly (a detection script on sample inputs, a plot from logged results); large mined corpora or industrial data may stay scripted with access clearly documented. Stating the achieved level honestly beats promising turnkey behavior that fails on a clean machine.

Vignette: a mixed-methods study

Consider a study combining mined pull-request data with a developer survey. Its reproducibility spine: the mining scripts with pinned SHAs and extraction date; the anonymized extracted dataset; the survey instrument and anonymized responses; the qualitative codebook with inter-rater agreement; and the analysis notebooks that turn all of it into the paper's tables — plus one honest sentence about the parts (raw identities, private repositories) that cannot be shared and why.

Consistency and camera-ready pass

  • Before submission: every scored number traces to the artifact; the Data Availability statement matches reality; the artifact is anonymized (no owner strings, cluster paths, or lab names).
  • Before camera-ready: swap anonymized links for permanent, DOI-issuing archives, and align the statement with the ACM artifact badges you are pursuing (fse-artifact-evaluation).

Output format

[Claim inventory] <claim -> evidence location>
[Data Availability] concrete / vague / missing
[Provenance gaps] <mining SHAs / LLM caching / seeds / compute>
[Reproducibility level] turnkey / scripted / descriptive, stated honestly
[Paper fixes] <must appear in the PDF>
[Artifact fixes] <additions before upload>

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.