Individual skill
wacv-experiments
Use when designing or auditing WACV experiments, covering Applications-track systems evidence (latency, power, robustness under real constraints) versus Algorithms-track matched-baseline novelty, comparative assessment under the deployed condition, uncertainty over seeds and sessions, ablations, and evidence that survives the two-round review.
WACV-Skills/skills/wacv-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
- 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.
- 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
- engineering Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 4,130 bytes
Read excerpt
# WACV Experiments
Use this to build evidence a WACV reviewer accepts in Round 1 instead of sending to Revise
and Resubmit. The controlling idea: WACV reviews under **two tracks**, and each track has a
different evidence bar. Facts are the WACV 2026/2027 cycles as read on 2026-07-09.
## Evidence by track
| Question the reviewer asks | Applications track | Algorithms track |
|---|---|---|
| Does it work where it must? | Metric **under the deployment constraint** (power/latency/light/data budget) | Metric on the standard benchmark |
| Is the comparison fair? | Baselines re-tuned to the **same constraint**, not their defaults | Baselines under **matched backbone/compute** |
| What does it cost? | Measured latency, wattage, memory on the **named device** | FLOPs/params/throughput reported honestly |
| When does it fail? | Failure cases under the real condition | Ablation isolating the mechanism |