Individual skill

icalp-related-work

Use when writing the related-work and positioning of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper — comparing against the best known bounds in the TCS literature, crediting the right prior venues (STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS/CCC and TCS journals), stating the delta precisely, and keeping self-citations third-person under lightweight double-blind.

ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-related-work/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

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): 1,409
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 · 4,699 bytes

Read excerpt


# ICALP Related Work

At ICALP, related work is where you prove your result is **new and better**, not where you list
adjacent papers. A theory referee arrives already knowing the best bound for your problem; your job is
to state **exactly how your result compares** and to credit the lineage correctly. Vague or missing
positioning is a top rejection cause even for correct proofs.

## The comparison is the point

- Name the **best known prior bound** for your exact problem and setting, and state your improvement in
  the same sentence. "Prior work achieved X under assumption A; we achieve Y, removing A" is the
  contract.
- If your result is **incomparable** to prior work (different regime, different parameter), say so
  explicitly and give the reader the axis of comparison — do not let them assume you missed a stronger