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.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
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.
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.
| Weeks out (heuristic) | Attack-plus-defense milestone |
|---|---|
| 10+ | Threat model frozen, attack primitive working end to end |
| 8 | Defense implemented; adaptive attacker designed against it |
| 6 | Measurement or evaluation runs complete, environment logged |
| 4 | Ethics and responsible-disclosure section drafted, disclosure initiated |
| 3 | Full draft in ACM sigconf two-column format |
| 2 | Internal red-team read by an adversarial-minded colleague |
| 1 | Anonymity sweep, artifact-availability statement, appendix assembly |
| 0 | Abstract registered, then full paper in HotCRP |
Anchor every offset to the current cycle, never to a past calendar.
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.
[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>
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。