Individual skill
isca-experiments
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ISCA paper — pinning simulator fidelity to the claims it must carry, documenting gem5-class configurations and sampling choices, selecting workload suites that represent the claim's domain, tuning baselines in good faith, and separating architectural effect from modeling artifact.
ISCA-Skills/skills/isca-experiments/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- No
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,405
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- research Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Read excerpt
# ISCA Experiments
Most ISCA evaluations run on models of machines rather than machines, so the
evaluation section is really two nested arguments: that the *modeled* effect is
real, and that the *model* deserves trust for this effect. Reviewers at this venue
are professionally skeptical about the second argument, and papers die on it more
often than on the first. Everything below serves one rule: **the paper must state
what its numbers are made of.**
## Declare the methodology contract
Early in the methodology section, answer four questions explicitly — this is the
contract reviewers try to reconstruct when authors omit it:
