Menu

Individual skill

facct-related-work

0upvotes

Use when positioning an ACM FAccT submission across its many disciplinary lanes — algorithmic fairness/ML, HCI, law and policy, STS and critical theory, and prior FAccT/FAT* proceedings — writing delta-first contrast that a mixed reviewer pool will accept, citing borrowed constructs to their real origin, keeping self-citations mutually anonymous, and declaring overlap with workshops, preprints, and prior versions.

FAccT-Skills/skills/facct-related-work/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
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.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# FAccT Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and disciplinary reach. FAccT reviewers come from **different fields**,
and each expects to see the nearest work **in their lane** engaged. A fairness-metrics reviewer
wants the ML fairness literature; a legal reviewer wants the relevant law and governance work; an
STS/critical reviewer wants the theory you are (often implicitly) drawing on. The fastest way to
lose a mixed panel is a bibliography that is deep in one field and blank in the others. Reopen the
current CFP for anonymity, dual-submission, and prior-publication rules before advising.

## Positioning checks

- **Name the FAccT novelty precisely.** What is new: a fairness/transparency method, an empirical
  harm nobody had measured, an accountability framework, a reframing of a taken-for-granted
  construct, a qualitative account of an affected community, or a legal-technical synthesis?
Back to top