본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

ccs-workflow

Use when planning an ACM CCS project timeline across the two HotCRP review cycles, from venue fit through abstract registration, full-paper upload, rebuttal, notification, revision, artifact evaluation, ACM camera-ready, and in-person presentation, with backward-planning offsets and the security big-four deadline-hopping calendar.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

CCS Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for a CCS submission. CCS is a conference, not a journal: it has no editor-in-chief and no article-processing charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition General Chairs and Program Co-Chairs (CCS 2026 Program Co-Chairs: Véronique Cortier and Zhiqiang Lin, reported 2026-07-08; verify against the organizing-committee page). Replace every date below with the current cycle's HotCRP deadlines and work backward.

The dual-deadline cycle

CCS runs two review cycles per year into one conference. A paper enters one cycle only; work rejected in the first cycle may not be resubmitted (even revised) to the second cycle of the same year. Pick the cycle from readiness, not hope — a thin first-cycle submission burns the year at this venue.

  • CCS 2026 (The Hague, Netherlands, Nov 15-19, 2026) Cycle A: abstract registration Jan 7, full paper Jan 14, rebuttal Mar 17-20, notification Apr 9, 2026 (verify).
  • CCS 2026 Cycle B: abstract registration Apr 22, full paper Apr 29, rebuttal Jun 29-Jul 1, notification Jul 17, 2026 (verify). Camera-ready reported Aug 21, 2026.
  • Both 2026 deadlines have passed as of 2026-07-08; treat them as a template and read the CCS 2027 CFP when posted (CCS 2027 host city was still under steering-committee selection).

Milestones

  • Venue fit: confirm the contribution is a broad security result for the SIGSAC PC.
  • Evidence lock: freeze threat model, attack/defense implementation, adaptive evaluation, measurement validation, and the ethics/disclosure posture.
  • Abstract registration: mandatory title, authors, abstract, and topics in HotCRP before the registration deadline; no paper without a registered abstract.
  • Full-paper deadline: upload the anonymized 12-page ACM sigconf PDF plus appendices.
  • Rebuttal window: respond to reviews in the short author-response period.
  • Notification: accept, minor revision (revise within the cycle), or reject.
  • Artifact evaluation: submit artifacts after acceptance for ACM badges if you opt in.
  • Camera-ready and registration: ACM proceedings version, then in-person presentation.

Backward plan from the full-paper deadline

Weeks out (heuristic)Attack-plus-defense milestone
10+Threat model frozen, attack primitive working end to end
8Defense implemented; adaptive attacker designed against it
6Measurement or evaluation runs complete, environment logged
4Ethics and responsible-disclosure section drafted, disclosure initiated
3Full draft in ACM sigconf two-column format
2Internal red-team read by an adversarial-minded colleague
1Anonymity sweep, artifact-availability statement, appendix assembly
0Abstract registered, then full paper in HotCRP

Anchor every offset to the current cycle, never to a past calendar.

Big-four deadline-hopping

CCS, IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, and NDSS run rolling multi-cycle deadlines, so a paper rejected in one can often be reworked into the next open venue within weeks. Keep a live map: a CCS Cycle A reject in April can target USENIX Security or the next NDSS cycle rather than waiting a year. Never resubmit unchanged — reviewers rotate across all four venues.

Coordination notes

  • Assign one owner for the ethics/disclosure section and another for the anonymity sweep; shared ownership is how both slip.
  • Archive the exact submitted PDF and appendices, since rebuttal replies must quote them.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / building / writing / abstract / submission / rebuttal / accepted / artifact
[Cycle] A / B and next official deadline (date + source, or unknown)
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <threat-model / anonymity / ethics / evidence / artifact / presentation>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

brycewang-stanford의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고