# Aaai Submission > Use when auditing an AAAI main technical track submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reproducibility checklist, supplementary material, author limits, multiple-submission policy, and AAAI AI-use policy compliance. - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-brycewang-stanford-awesome-journal-skills-aaai-submission` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [brycewang-stanford](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/brycewang-stanford) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [AI & ML](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/ai-and-ml) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [brycewang-stanford](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford) - **Source:** https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/AAAI-Skills/skills/aaai-submission - **Website:** https://www.copaper.ai ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-brycewang-stanford-awesome-journal-skills-aaai-submission ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # AAAI Submission Use this for an AAAI main technical track submission audit. Reopen the current conference page, Author Kit, CFP, submission instructions, review process page, supplementary-material page, and author policies before giving deadline-ready advice. ## Submission audit - Confirm the target track: Main Track, AI for Social Impact, AI Alignment, or another AAAI program. Track-specific rules can differ. - Verify OpenReview account/profile readiness, conflicts, author list, subject areas, and submission metadata before the abstract and paper deadlines. - Check the current AAAI author kit. AAAI-26 submissions used AAAI two-column camera-ready style, US Letter PDF, and 7 pages of technical content plus pages solely for references and the reproducibility checklist. - Confirm double-blind compliance in the PDF, file names, references to prior work, supplement, code/data, and metadata. Omit acknowledgments in the review version. - Include the reproducibility checklist after references when current instructions require it. - Enforce the author submission limit and author-change rules. AAAI-26 limited each author to 10 combined technical-track submissions and did not allow authors to be added after submission. - Check multiple-submission compliance. An AAAI submission under review cannot simultaneously be under review at another archival venue. - Apply the current AAAI AI-use policy: editing/polishing author-written text may be allowed, but LLM-generated manuscript text, AI authorship, and AI-generated citations are policy risks. ## Blocking risks - Over-limit technical content or malformed PDF. - Missing reproducibility checklist. - Identity leakage in paper, supplement, links, code, data, or prior-work citations. - Author added after the allowed window. - Concurrent archival submission. - Web pointers to mutable supplementary material. - Policy-violating LLM-generated text, hallucinated references, or plagiarism. ## Summary-reject screen AAAI's large reviewer pool and high volume mean a desk-level or Phase-1 cut is the most likely way to lose, so screen for the mechanical failures first. | Check | Fast-fail trigger | Where it bites | | --- | --- | --- | | Page limit | technical content over the cap | desk return | | Anonymity | author name in PDF, code, or metadata | policy reject | | Checklist | missing or contradictory | Phase-1 distrust | | Dual submission | concurrent archival venue | ethics reject | ## Pre-deadline evidence packet Build a single review-version packet before the abstract deadline, then refresh it before final submission. The packet is not a substitute for the official instructions; it is a way to make the submission audit reproducible and to keep late fixes from creating new policy problems. | Packet item | What to capture | Failure it prevents | | --- | --- | --- | | Policy snapshot | current conference page, Author Kit, submission instructions, supplementary-material rules, and AI-use policy checked dates | applying stale AAAI-26 facts to a later cycle | | PDF proof | page count, paper size, style file, checklist placement, font/figure warnings, and metadata scrub result | desk return for formatting or anonymity | | Author ledger | OpenReview profiles, conflicts, subject areas, author-limit count, and author-list freeze status | profile conflict, over-limit author, late author change | | Supplement ledger | every appendix, multimedia, code/data ZIP, README, license note, and anonymous link policy decision | mutable web pointer or identity leak | | Ethics ledger | dual-submission status, human-subjects/data constraints, AI-use disclosure, plagiarism/citation check | policy reject after submission | For each item, record the evidence path and the person who can fix it. If a rule is uncertain, mark it as "requires current chair/author-kit confirmation" instead of guessing. ## Anonymity sweep order Run anonymity checks in a fixed order so fixes do not reintroduce leaks: 1. PDF text: names, affiliations, acknowledgments, grants, self-identifying project names, and obvious self-citations. 2. PDF metadata: title, author, producer, comments, embedded attachments, and file name. 3. References: prior work phrased as "our previous" or "submitted to" when blind citation would be required. 4. Supplement: ZIP names, directory names, notebooks, comments, plots, data paths, license files, and executable logs. 5. External references: GitHub, project pages, anonymous archives, videos, demos, or issue trackers. 6. OpenReview metadata: author list, conflicts, subject areas, institutional hints in abstract or keywords. The output should separate "must fix before submission" from "acceptable but document why." Do not rely on a single manual skim; use PDF metadata tools, archive listing, and text search when available. ## Worked vignette A robotics-learning team has 7 strong technical pages but left an acknowledgments line and a GitHub URL with their lab name in the supplement. The audit flags anonymity as the highest summary-reject risk: the fix order is strip the acknowledgment, replace the link with an anonymous archive, scrub ZIP metadata, then re-export and re-run the anonymity sweep before the paper deadline. ## Output format ```text [AAAI readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready [Track] Main / AI for Social Impact / AI Alignment / other [Blocking checks] [Highest summary-reject risk] [Fix order] ``` ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [brycewang-stanford](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford) - **Source:** [brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) - **License:** MIT - **Homepage:** https://www.copaper.ai Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-brycewang-stanford-awesome-journal-skills-aaai-submission - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/brycewang-stanford - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.