Individual skill
uist-experiments
Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a UIST paper — choosing among technical benchmarks, controlled comparisons, usability walkthroughs, expert sessions, and demonstration applications, matching evaluation shape to the systems claim, and avoiding the ritual study that proves nothing the paper asserts.
UIST-Skills/skills/uist-experiments/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- No
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Not checked yet
- 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)
- 1,410
- 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.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 6,673 bytes
Read excerpt
# UIST Experiments
UIST does not have a single evaluation orthodoxy; it has a matching rule. The
evaluation must measure the claim the artifact makes, and different artifact types
make categorically different claims. The classic failure is the **ritual study**: a
12-participant SUS-and-task-time exercise bolted onto a toolkit paper whose actual
claim — "this abstraction lets developers build a class of things" — no usability
score can support.
## Match evaluation to claim type
| Artifact claim | Primary evidence | Supporting evidence |
|---|---|---|
| "This technique outperforms the status quo" (input, pointing, text entry) | Controlled within-subjects comparison against the real incumbent | Learning-curve data over sessions |