acm-symposium-on-theory-of-computing - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: acm-symposium-on-theory-of-computing description: Use when targeting ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for theory flagship.

ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)

Conference positioning

ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) is a top computer-science conference venue for algorithms, complexity, cryptography theory, learning theory, quantum computing, and theoretical foundations. It rewards a theory paper with major theorem contribution and broad theoretical-computer-science significance. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.

Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.

When to trigger

The author names STOC / ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing as the target venue.
A manuscript in algorithms needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.

Scope & topic fit

Core fit: algorithms, complexity, cryptography theory, learning theory, quantum computing, and theoretical foundations.
Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
The paper should explain why the result matters to STOC's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.

Venue-specific calibration

Reviewer lens: Read reviewers as theory specialists. The result needs precise statements, proof significance, and foundations-level positioning.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: algorithms, complexity, cryptography theory, learning theory, quantum computing, and theoretical foundations.
Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: algorithms, complexity, cryptography, theory, learning, quantum, computing, theoretical, foundations, venue-specific, contribution, flagship, acm-stoc.
Official anchor domain: acm-stoc.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.

Close-neighbor routing guardrail

Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in theory flagship and the author can say why STOC reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: acm-sigmod-international- conference-on-management-of-data (SIGMOD), international-conference-on-very-large-data- bases (VLDB), ieee-symposium-on-foundations-of-computer-science (FOCS). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from acm-stoc.org.

What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings

Sponsorship & season. ACM SIGACT, held each spring; with FOCS (its IEEE-sponsored autumn sister) it forms the top-two theory-of-computing pair.
Scope is near-identical to FOCS. Differentiate by deadline/cycle and program committee, not by topic or prestige; pick whichever cycle the result is ready for.
vs SODA/CCC/ITCS. Algorithms-heavy work may fit SODA; complexity-specific work CCC; conceptual/early theory ITCS — route by sub-area when STOC/FOCS breadth is not the best home.

STOC-specific routing detail

Prefer STOC when the paper can sell a broad theoretical-computer-science breakthrough to a cross-area SIGACT audience: the first page should make the theorem, model, and conceptual payoff legible beyond one narrow subcommunity.
Treat FOCS as the closest peer, but use STOC for the spring-cycle version of a result whose positioning benefits from ACM SIGACT breadth, STOC plenary visibility, or a cleaner story around algorithms/complexity/crypto/theory convergence.
Do not use STOC merely because the result is mathematical. A strongly empirical algorithms paper, a specialized complexity classification, or a cryptographic construction with protocol-specific evaluation may route better to SODA, CCC, CRYPTO, EUROCRYPT, or a domain venue.

Method & evidence bar

For systems/data papers, use realistic workloads, data sizes, and baselines; for theory papers, give exact statements and complete proofs.
Explain the data model, assumptions, complexity, and implementation details at the level reviewers can audit.
Connect the result to a durable database, algorithmic, or theoretical problem rather than a one-off benchmark.
For STOC, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a theory paper with major theorem contribution and broad theoretical-computer-science significance.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.

Structure & house style

Lead with the formal or systems problem and the new capability the paper creates.
Use figures or examples to make the model clear before dense proof or system detail.
Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.

Official-cycle checklist

Open the live official venue page: https://acm-stoc.org/
Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at STOC, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
Related work includes the nearest current-cycle theory flagship papers and explains the technical delta.
The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.

Common desk-reject triggers

Benchmark gains with no explanation of why the method generalizes.
Theory result whose significance is unclear outside a narrow variant.
Missing implementation details or proof gaps in the central claim.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving STOC reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.

Re-routing decision

If the paper misses STOC's bar, compare against acm-sigmod-international-conference-on-management-of-data / international-conference-on-very-large-data-bases / ieee-international-conference-on-data-engineering / ieee-symposium-on-foundations-of-computer-science. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>