FAccT Supplementary

SkillDev tools

Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM FAccT paper body versus its endmatter statements, appendices, and supplementary material, the 14-page acmart budget, the extra endmatter page for ethics/adverse-impacts statements, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays in the reviewed pages, mutually-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split an interdisciplinary paper between body, endmatter, and artifact.

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.

Then ask your AI: use the FAccT Supplementary skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills in FAccT-Skills/skills/facct-supplementary/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Use this when assembling FAccT supplementary material. Two rules govern the split. First, the familiar one: the paper must be judgeable from the reviewed pages alone — appendices and released artifacts support the paper, they do not hold the argument. Second, the FAccT-specific one: the endmatter statements (Generative AI Usage, Ethical Considerations, Adverse Impacts, Positionality) are a distinct zone with their own page allowance and their own anonymity rules — get that zone right or risk a policy problem independent of the paper's quality.

The three zones

ZoneCounts toward the 14-page limit?Anonymity at submission
Body (intro → limitations)Yes (up to 14; 15 if Revised/accepted)Anonymous
Endmatter statementsNo — one extra content page allowedMixed (see below)
Appendix / supplementary / released artifactPer current CFP — confirmAnonymous; strip metadata

What goes where

ContentBody (within budget)EndmatterAppendix / artifact
The FAccT contribution and who is affectedYes——
Core method / study design / argumentYes—Full parameter grids, extra config
Headline disaggregated results + limitationsYes—Full result tables, secondary breakdowns
Ethical Considerations, Adverse Impacts—Yes—
Generative AI Usage Statement—Yes (required)—
Positionality, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions—Yes — only upon acceptance—
Interview protocol, full codebook, datasheetSummary + key themes in body—Yes
Raw data, analysis scripts——Yes

If a reviewer would need to open the appendix to know whether the harm is real or the method is sound, the paper is mis-partitioned — move that evidence into the body.

The endmatter zone (FAccT-specific, easy to get wrong)

[Generative AI Usage]  REQUIRED for every submission: state whether/how generative AI was used;
                       FAccT prohibits wholesale AI-generated manuscript text
[Ethical Considerations] the concerns you faced and how you addressed them (safe to include anonymized)
[Adverse Impacts]      foreseeable unintended harms once published/deployed, and mitigations
[Positionality]        how the authors' background shapes the work — IDENTITY-REVEALING, so add ONLY
                       upon acceptance; keep it OUT of the anonymous submission
[Author Contributions / Acknowledgements / Competing Interests] also identity-revealing -> acceptance only

The extra endmatter page does not count against the 14-page limit, so a strong ethics/adverse- impacts treatment costs you nothing in body space — write it properly rather than cramming a sentence into the conclusion.

Mutually-anonymous supplementary rules

[No identity]   no authors, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding, cluster paths, or repo owners
                anywhere in the appendix, artifact, or the statements you DO include at submission
[No positionality] the positionality/acks/contributions statements are withheld until acceptance
[Anonymized links] any released code/data link points at an anonymizing host, not a personal repo
[Clean archive]  no .git history, .DS_Store, credentials, caches, or participant-identifying files
[Opens clean]    verify the archive unzips and a README orients a reader in one minute

Vignette: splitting a mixed-methods paper

A paper auditing a system plus interviewing affected users: the body keeps the contribution, the study design, the headline disaggregated results with uncertainty, the key qualitative themes, and a limitations subsection; the endmatter carries the required Generative AI Usage Statement, an Ethical Considerations statement about the consent and re-harm risks, and an Adverse Impacts statement about how the audit could be misused — with Positionality held for the accepted version. The appendix/artifact holds the analysis code, the datasheet, the full codebook, and the interview protocol. Nothing decision-critical lives only in the appendix.

Output format

[Supplement status] ready / needs fixes / not ready
[Partition check] anything decision-critical outside the body? <none / move: what>
[Page budget] body within limit? endmatter on its allowed extra page? yes/no
[Endmatter] <Generative AI Usage present? ethics/adverse-impacts drafted? positionality withheld?>
[Anonymity] archive + included statements clean of identity + metadata? passed/issues

Signals

GitHub stars
1k
Forks
155
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
facct-supplementary
Source
github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills