Study Exemplars

Turns a target venue's strongest papers — best-paper awardees and top-cited work — into an original style-and-structure brief the user can write against: how winning papers at this venue architect their sections, frame contributions, design evaluations, and use figures and tables. Papers are fetched on demand from legal open-access sources and processed transiently. The deliverable contains metadata and original analysis only — never paper text. Sits between select-venue/parse-cfp (choosing the target) and the writing skills (write-abstract, draft-related-work, tailor-to-venue).

When to use

• "What do best papers at <venue> look like?" / "analyze the award winners"
• "Show me the most-cited <venue> papers and how they're structured"
• "I'm submitting to <venue> for the first time — how do successful papers

there frame contributions / run evaluations / lay out sections?"

• Before drafting: build a venue style brief that other writing skills consume
• NOT for finding papers on a topic (find-papers) or reviewing the

literature for content (literature-review) — this skill studies form

Inputs

• A target venue, ideally with a profile venues/conferences/<id>.yml

(schema: venues/schema.yml); otherwise resolve aliases per [references/finding-exemplars.md](references/finding-exemplars.md)

• Optional: year window (default: the last 3–4 completed proceedings

years), exemplar count (default 5–8), the user's paper type (research / short / demo) so analysis targets the right track

• CONTACT_EMAIL env var — required by every script (polite-pool identity);

scripts prompt interactively if unset, or exit nonzero with instructions

• Optional: S2APIKEY env var for reliable Semantic Scholar access

Process

1. Resolve the venue and lock the target

• Read the venue profile if one exists. Take aliases.s2_venue and

aliases.dblp_key from its aliases: block; note the track, page limit, and template the user will write for.

• **Re-verify critical facts against the live cfp_url before the user

relies on them** — the brief will state format conventions (page budget, template, required sections), and profiles go stale. If the profile's verified.date is older than the current CFP cycle, fetch the CFP and reconcile first.

• No profile? Resolve aliases via the find-papers skill's venue-aliases

table or live DBLP venue search before any query — a wrong S2 venue string silently returns zero papers.

2. Build the exemplar set (two complementary lists)

Best-paper awardees (the venue's own quality signal):

• Find award pages live — the venue/SIG awards page, year-site news posts,

or the jeffhuang.com aggregator. Source map and verification protocol: [references/finding-exemplars.md](references/finding-exemplars.md).

• Awards exist in no API. Never assert a winner from memory. Every

award claim needs (a) a source URL fetched this session AND (b) a DBLP metadata match:

``bash python3 scripts/lookup_exemplar.py --title "Exact Title From The Award Page" ``

If either is missing, drop the paper or label it explicitly unverified.

Top-cited (the community's quality signal):

# S2 venue string from the profile aliases — NOT the acronym
python3 scripts/rank_top_cited.py --venue "SIGSPATIAL/GIS" --year 2020-2023 --top 10
# or read the alias straight from a profile:
python3 scripts/rank_top_cited.py \
    --venue-profile venues/conferences/sigspatial-2026.yml --year 2020-2023 --top 10

One polite request ranks the whole venue-year window by citation count. Rank a window ending 2–3 years back — current-year counts are near zero and meaningless. More selection caveats (survey inflation, influential citations, DBLP cross-checks): [references/finding-exemplars.md](references/finding-exemplars.md).

Target 5–8 papers total: 3–4 verified awardees + 3–4 top-cited, spread across years, matching the user's track (don't study 10-page research papers to write a 4-page demo). Confirm the final set with the user before fetching.

3. Fetch each exemplar on demand — transiently

• One paper at a time, never in bulk. Resolve the OA copy with the

fetch-paper skill (scripts/resolve_oa.py <DOI> --json there), or use the OA hints both scripts here print (S2 openAccessPdf, arXiv HTML, dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/<doi> for post-2026 open-access ACM papers — that host blocks scripted downloads, so open it in a browser).

• Read the paper, extract observations, discard the file. Never write the

PDF, its text, or its abstract into the repo or any committed file.

• No legal OA copy (Unpaywall is_oa: false, no arXiv version)? **Skip the

paper and say so** — list it in the brief as "not analyzed (no open copy)". Never bypass a paywall or use shadow libraries.

4. Analyze each paper against the rubric

Work through [references/analysis-rubric.md](references/analysis-rubric.md) — the dimensions are: identity card, title/abstract patterns, section architecture, contribution framing, method presentation, evaluation patterns, figure/table conventions, related-work positioning, reproducibility apparatus, writing micro-style. Record facts and original observations (section names, counts, orderings, framing moves), not prose. Quotes: at most one short attributed fragment (<25 words) per paper, only when the exact wording is the observation.

As you record each paper's counts, also log the measurable ones (pages, references, figures, tables, abstract words, teaser/badge booleans, section skeleton) into a small per-paper JSON — these feed step 6.

5. Synthesize the style-and-structure brief

• Cross-paper synthesis first (what ≥ half the exemplars do = the venue

convention; splits = noted as variants), then one exemplar card per paper. Templates for both are at the end of the rubric.

• Reconcile with the venue profile: if exemplars contradict the current CFP

(e.g. older 8-page exemplars vs. a 10-page limit today), the live CFP wins — flag the delta so the user doesn't imitate an outdated rule.

• Cite every exemplar by verified metadata (title, authors, year, DOI). If

any entry will land in the user's bibliography, route it through verify-citations.

6. Cache a measured exemplar bundle (data hygiene)

The session's measurable facts are the on-family distribution downstream skills score drafts against. When a downstream skill's live exemplar fetch is skipped or rate-limited, it falls back to the venue/family profile's exemplar_distribution: block — which for most venues is hand-estimated, never measured. Cache yours so that fallback rests on real exemplars:

python3 scripts/build_exemplar_bundle.py measurements.json --out block.yml

This aggregates your per-paper measurements (from step 4) into a schema- conforming block: density bands (never fabricated single points), rates, and the modal skeleton, each stamped with measured: true, n, recency, and as_of: <date>. Paste it into the relevant profile under review (venues/conferences/<id>.yml, or venues/families/<family>.yml when the set spans the family), replacing any hand-estimated block. Bands from fewer than 3 papers are left null and the block is marked measured-low-confidence rather than overclaiming. Full rules and the input schema: [references/analysis-rubric.md](references/analysis-rubric.md) §14.

Because the block carries measured + asof, every score a consumer derives from it is labelled cache-vs-live (live / family-prior (measured, asof <date>) / family-prior (hand-estimated) / none) — a cache-derived score never reads as if measured live.

Output

A markdown brief (default exemplar-brief-<venue>.md in the working directory, or wherever the user asks) containing:

1. Exemplar roster — the 5–8 papers with metadata, selection reason

(award + source URL / citation rank + count), and OA link used

1. Venue conventions — the cross-paper synthesis across all rubric

dimensions, each claim tagged with which exemplars exhibit it

1. Exemplar cards — one compact per-paper analysis each
2. Deltas & caveats — exemplar habits that conflict with the live CFP,

papers skipped for lack of OA copies, unverified award claims dropped

1. Provenance — scripts run, award-page URLs, date, and the note that

citation counts are a snapshot (Semantic Scholar, ODC-BY, attributed)

Plus, when measurements were taken, a cached exemplardistribution: block (step 6) pasted into the relevant venue/family profile — the measured fallback downstream skills use when a live fetch fails, stamped measured, n, and asof.

The brief contains only metadata and original analysis — no abstracts, no reproduced passages, no extracted figures.

References

• [references/analysis-rubric.md](references/analysis-rubric.md) — the

analysis dimensions, what to record per paper, copyright line for outputs, synthesis + exemplar-card templates, and §14 caching the measured exemplar bundle (input schema + provenance labelling)

• [references/finding-exemplars.md](references/finding-exemplars.md) —

award sources and the verification protocol, top-cited selection methodology and caveats, OA resolution order, alias gotchas

• scripts/buildexemplarbundle.py — aggregates per-paper measurements into

a provenance-stamped exemplar_distribution: block (offline, stdlib; invents nothing, suppresses thin bands)

Guardrails

• Never bundle paper content. No paper text, abstracts, figures, or

PDFs in the repo, the brief, or any committed file — fetch on demand, process transiently, keep metadata (DOI, title, BibTeX fields) and original analysis only. Quotes ≤25 words, attributed, at most one per paper.

• Never fabricate exemplars. Every award claim needs a live source URL

plus a DBLP match; every citation count comes from a script run this session; anything entering a bibliography goes through verify-citations.

• Legal OA sources only; single polite fetches (the scripts enforce ≤1

req/s per host, contact-email User-Agent, 429 backoff, caching under .cache/study-exemplars/); never bulk-harvest a proceedings.

• Venue profiles are a starting point, never ground truth — re-verify

page limits, templates, and required sections against the live cfp_url before the user relies on them.

• Cache measurements, not text, and never overclaim them. The cached

exemplar_distribution: block is counts/bands/section-names only (safe to commit); never put paper text in it. It is a fallback, not ground truth — a live corpus for the target venue still wins. Emit bands only from ≥3 papers (thinner → null / measured-low-confidence), never a fabricated single point, and label every cache-derived score cache-vs-live so it never reads as measured live this session.

• Studying exemplars means learning conventions, not copying — never

reproduce a specific paper's text, structure verbatim, or ideas without attribution. Never submit anything to any system on the user's behalf.