Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

ccs-reproducibility

Use when strengthening ACM CCS reproducibility evidence, including the artifact-availability posture, threat-model-to-evidence mapping, attack reproduction steps, defense overhead measurement, measurement-dataset provenance, environment and version pinning, and honest justification when artifacts cannot be shared.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

CCS Reproducibility

Use this before submission and again before the artifact-evaluation deadline. Reopen the current CFP and call for artifacts to confirm what availability statement and packaging CCS expects this cycle.

Evidence map

  • Map each security claim — every attack, defense guarantee, and measurement result — to a verifiable location: a script, a config, a dataset, a proof, or a logged run.
  • For attacks, record the target's exact version and configuration, the attacker's resource budget, and the sequence of steps that reproduce the exploit.
  • For defenses, record the workload, the overhead-measurement method, the hardware, and the adaptive attacker used, so the cost-versus-security tradeoff can be rechecked.
  • For measurements, document the vantage point, the collection window, the sampling frame, known blind spots, and the ground-truth validation.
  • When artifacts cannot be shared — licensing, responsible disclosure, subject safety, or premature-release risk — say so explicitly and offer partial, synthetic, or redacted artifacts that still let a reader assess the methodology.

Availability-posture table

Claim typeWhat full sharing looks likeHonest fallback when sharing is blocked
Exploit against deployed softwareRunnable PoC plus target buildRedacted PoC, disclosed-and-patched note, synthetic target
Defense with overhead numbersInstrumented build and benchmark scriptsBinaries plus measurement scripts if source is proprietary
Internet-scale measurementDataset plus collection toolingAggregated data with subject-privacy justification for the rest
Cryptographic protocolReference implementation and test vectorsSpec plus test vectors if the implementation is embargoed

Claiming an artifact is unavailable without a reason CCS accepts (a license, a disclosure embargo, subject safety) reads as evasion; state the specific reason and offer the closest shareable substitute.

Vignette: a measurement paper on vulnerable hosts

Consider a study scanning the Internet for a misconfiguration. Its reproducibility spine: the scan methodology and rate-limiting, the classification rule for "vulnerable," the ground-truth sample validated by hand, the ethics of scanning and notification, and an aggregated dataset that preserves the finding without exposing individual vulnerable hosts to opportunistic attackers.

Degrees of reproducibility

  • Turnkey: one command reproduces the attack or the overhead measurement from pinned configs.
  • Scripted: scripts exist but need documented manual steps or gated data access.
  • Descriptive: prose detailed enough that a competent security researcher could rebuild it.

For CCS, aim turnkey for anything you submit to artifact evaluation, and state the achieved level honestly rather than overpromising a one-command reproduction that fails on a clean host.

Output format

[Claim inventory] <claim -> evidence location>
[Availability posture] full / partial / justified-withheld
[Reproducibility gaps] <versions / configs / budgets / provenance / ethics>
[Paper fixes] <must appear in main PDF or appendix>
[Artifact fixes] <packaging additions before the AE deadline>

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill