Individual skill
eccv-experiments
Use when designing or auditing the experimental program of an ECCV paper — benchmark selection that survives a September conference, matched-substrate baseline fairness in the foundation-model era, ablations that isolate the claimed mechanism, qualitative failure evidence, and run sequencing toward a March freeze.
ECCV-Skills/skills/eccv-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
- 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 · 4,232 bytes
Read excerpt
# ECCV Experiments
Use this while the experimental plan is still changeable. ECCV's calendar
shapes the evidence problem: results freeze in early March, reviews weigh
them in May against everything published since, and the field first reads
the paper at a **September** conference — the numbers must still look
current six months after the freeze.
## The six-month-staleness test
For each headline table, ask: *if the strongest lab in this niche publishes
their CVPR camera-ready in June, does this table still support the claim in
September?* Evidence that passes: mechanism-isolating ablations, efficiency
frontiers (accuracy vs compute), and generality sweeps across datasets.