ieee-infocom - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: ieee-infocom description: Use when targeting IEEE INFOCOM (INFOCOM) 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 networking.

IEEE INFOCOM (INFOCOM)

Conference positioning

IEEE INFOCOM (INFOCOM) is a top computer-science conference venue for computer communications, networks, protocols, performance, wireless, and distributed network algorithms. It rewards a networking paper with solid analytical or empirical performance evidence. 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 INFOCOM / IEEE INFOCOM as the target venue.
A manuscript in computer communications 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: computer communications, networks, protocols, performance, wireless, and distributed network algorithms.
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 INFOCOM'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: Treat INFOCOM as a broad IEEE computer-communications venue: models, protocols, wireless networks, performance analysis, and distributed network algorithms all fit. It is often more algorithmic or communications-oriented than ACM SIGCOMM or CoNEXT.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: computer communications, networks, protocols, performance, wireless, and distributed network algorithms.
Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: communications, networks, protocols, performance, wireless, distributed, network, algorithms, venue-specific, contribution, networking, infocom, info.
Official anchor domain: infocom.info. 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 networking and the author can say why INFOCOM reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: acm-mobisys (MobiSys), acm- conext (CoNEXT), eurosys (EuroSys), usenix-annual-technical-conference (USENIX ATC). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from infocom.info.

What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings

What INFOCOM is. The IEEE networking conference — broad coverage including performance modeling, optimization, and theory alongside systems, larger than the ACM venues.
vs SIGCOMM. SIGCOMM (ACM) is the more selective, measurement/systems-forward flagship; bring analytical/performance work to INFOCOM.
vs CoNEXT. CoNEXT (ACM SIGCOMM) targets emerging experimental networking; differentiate by community (IEEE vs ACM) and contribution style.

INFOCOM-specific routing detail

Prefer INFOCOM when the paper is IEEE networking research: network algorithms, protocols, wireless/mobile networking, measurement, modeling, or communication-network performance.
Route systems-heavy networking to SIGCOMM/CoNEXT/NSDI, European systems artifacts to EuroSys, and security/privacy networking to NDSS/WiSec when threat model dominates.
INFOCOM evidence should include network model or deployment assumptions, protocol analysis, simulation or measurement validity, scalability, and performance tradeoffs.

Method & evidence bar

Build the artifact or prototype far enough that the core design can be measured under realistic workloads.
Use appropriate baselines, sensitivity analyses, and workload characterization; systems reviewers look for hidden bottlenecks.
Separate engineering effort from research contribution: name the abstraction, mechanism, or tradeoff.
For INFOCOM, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a networking paper with solid analytical or empirical performance evidence.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.

Structure & house style

Start from a systems pain point and show why existing abstractions fail.
Use evaluation sections that answer research questions, not a tour of every benchmark run.
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://infocom.info/
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: the current USENIX/ACM/IEEE author kit, artifact policy, and submission system.
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 INFOCOM, 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 networking 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

Toy implementation or microbenchmark-only evidence for a systems claim.
No comparison to mature systems or no explanation of deployment constraints.
Performance gains with unclear workload representativeness.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving INFOCOM reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.

Re-routing decision

If the paper misses INFOCOM's bar, compare against acm-symposium-on-operating-systems-principles / usenix-symposium-on-operating-systems-design-and-implementation / usenix-symposium-on-networked-systems-design-and-implementation / acm-sigcomm. 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] IEEE INFOCOM (INFOCOM)
[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>