From aaai-skills
Guides positioning of an AAAI paper's novelty against archival and contemporaneous work, with structured checks for reviewer expectations and dual-submission policy compliance.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/aaai-skills:aaai-related-workThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Use this to make the novelty claim robust under AAAI's broad AI review. The related-work section
Use this to make the novelty claim robust under AAAI's broad AI review. The related-work section must help reviewers distinguish the paper from both archival work and contemporaneous non-archival work.
Use this structure:
Closest prior work solves <problem> under <assumptions>.
It does not address <specific missing setting/mechanism/evidence>.
This paper contributes <new item> and verifies it through <evidence>.
The claim is limited to <scope>.
AAAI spans search, planning, knowledge representation, constraint satisfaction, multi-agent systems, learning, NLP, vision, and robotics, so the closest prior work may live in a subfield your reviewer does not. Make the contrast explicit for a non-specialist instead of assuming shared background.
| Neighbor venue | Reviewer expectation | Differentiation to spell out |
|---|---|---|
| IJCAI | broad-AI overlap | what your result adds beyond their framing |
| NeurIPS/ICML | ML method or theory depth | why AAAI breadth, not just a benchmark gain |
| ICLR | representation-learning lens | non-learning mechanism or guarantee you contribute |
| AAAI prior years | incremental-track suspicion | the new assumption, evidence, or scope |
A reasoning-over-knowledge-graphs paper sits near both a KR archival line and a recent NeurIPS embedding paper. Using the axes: against KR work the difference is evidence (learned vs. hand-built rules); against the NeurIPS neighbor it is scope (logical soundness, not just link prediction). One contemporaneous arXiv preprint is cited as non-archival with a one-line delta, and the dual-submission box is checked clean.
[Closest work] <paper/system/benchmark>
[Difference axis] problem / method / theory / data / evaluation / system / impact
[Must-cite items] <archival and contemporaneous work>
[Multiple-submission risk] none / clarify / withdraw / reroute
[Revision text] <AAAI-ready related-work paragraph>
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin aaai-skillsAudits an IJCAI submission's novelty, prior work positioning, and compliance with dual-submission/resubmission rules. Useful for distinguishing archival vs. non-archival versions and citing arXiv/workshop papers.
Positions a NeurIPS submission against current-cycle ML literature, preprints, and neighboring conferences. Outputs a structured related-work gap analysis with technical deltas.
Positions an ICLR paper against prior work, concurrent submissions, and benchmark lineages to survive reviewer scrutiny. Use when a reviewer cites a missed paper or disputes novelty.