인터페이스는 현지화되어 있으며, Skill 소개와 설명 문서는 선택한 언어로 AI가 자동 번역합니다. 코드·명령어·경로·전문 용어는 원문을 유지하며 원작자 문서가 우선합니다.
Skills 둘러보기
데이터 및 연구 · SKILL.md

neurips-workflow

neurips-workflow

Use when planning and sequencing a full NeurIPS manuscript workflow from topic and track selection through writing, the mandatory Paper Checklist, OpenReview submission, double-blind review, author response, decision, camera-ready, artifact release, and rerouting to the Datasets & Benchmarks track, a workshop, or MLRC/TMLR.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Skill 문서

GitHub

name: neurips-workflow description: Use when planning and sequencing a full NeurIPS manuscript workflow from topic and track selection through writing, the mandatory Paper Checklist, OpenReview submission, double-blind review, author response, decision, camera-ready, artifact release, and rerouting to the Datasets & Benchmarks track, a workshop, or MLRC/TMLR.

NeurIPS Workflow

Use this skill as the router for the NeurIPS depth pack. It helps choose the next skill and stage the work so a manuscript does not arrive at submission with hidden policy or evidence gaps.

NeurIPS is a conference, not a journal: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition General Chairs and Program Chairs (2026 General Chairs: Hsuan-Tien Lin and Razvan Pascanu, verified 2026-06-22), and the cost model is registration fees, not APCs — proceedings are open-access on OpenReview. Conference organizers rotate yearly, so re-check the current CFP and committees page rather than carrying a name forward.

Stage map

  1. Topic and track fit: use neurips-topic-selection.
  2. Paper shaping: use neurips-writing-style, neurips-related-work, and neurips-experiments.
  3. Artifact and supplement planning: use neurips-artifact-evaluation, neurips-reproducibility, and neurips-supplementary.
  4. Final pre-submission audit: use neurips-submission.
  5. Review diagnosis: use neurips-review-process.
  6. Rebuttal and discussion: use neurips-author-response.
  7. Acceptance and public release: use neurips-camera-ready.

Operating principles

  • Start official-source checks early; NeurIPS annual policies change.
  • Keep track choice explicit. A main-track method paper, E&D paper, position paper, and MLRC paper are not interchangeable.
  • Write the checklist in parallel with the paper rather than at the end.
  • Maintain one evidence table mapping every central claim to proof, experiment, data, artifact, and limitation.
  • Keep an anonymous review artifact and a de-anonymized public release artifact as separate states.

Deadline ladder to schedule backward from

NeurIPS spreads its gates across the year, so plan backward from the abstract deadline, not the full-paper deadline. The exact dates move every cycle; reopen the current CFP and Main Track Handbook for the live calendar.

GateWhat locks hereSkill to finish before it
OpenReview profilesevery author needs an active, complete profileneurips-submission
Abstract deadlinetitle, abstract, and author list freeze (order may change after)neurips-topic-selection, neurips-related-work
Full-paper deadlinePDF, checklist, and code/data ZIP submitted togetherneurips-experiments, neurips-supplementary
Reviews releasednothing changes; you read and triageneurips-review-process
Author-response windowrebuttal through OpenReview, no new paper versionneurips-author-response
Decisionaccept (spotlight/poster) or rejectneurips-camera-ready if accepted
Camera-readyde-anonymize, finalize checklist, public artifactsneurips-camera-ready, neurips-artifact-evaluation

Track-fork early warning

Decide the track before drafting, because the Datasets & Benchmarks track, Position Papers track, and MLRC/TMLR reproducibility route each have a distinct call, checklist emphasis, and review rubric. A dataset paper forced into the main track, or a reproduction study that belongs in MLRC, wastes a full cycle. If neurips-topic-selection flags a fork, resolve it before any other stage.

Worked vignette: where this router intervenes

A team has strong benchmark wins for a new retrieval method but no mechanism analysis and a thin limitations paragraph. The router routes them to neurips-experiments (add ablations and error analysis) and neurips-writing-style (calibrate the claim and the limitations) before neurips-submission, rather than letting a leaderboard-only paper reach OpenReview where reviewers predictably ask for the missing mechanism.

Output format

[Current stage] topic / drafting / pre-submission / review / rebuttal / camera-ready / reroute
[Next skill] <one NeurIPS skill>
[Official source to open] <CFP/handbook/template/OpenReview/checklist>
[Blocking gap] <policy/evidence/artifact/writing>
[Next action] <concrete task>
저장한 Skills