Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/ccs-related-work
Use when positioning an ACM CCS submission against the security big-four and specialist literature, including arXiv preprints, prior CCS/S&P/USENIX/NDSS papers, concurrent disclosures, CVE and advisory records, and the attack-and-defense lineage that a SIGSAC program committee expects to see credited.
Passed 18 of 21 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 21 without it.
and 14 more in the full report
9 fixed10 passed either way1 still failing2 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 8 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We are auditing a submission presenting a microarchitectural timing attack on cryptographic libraries. The prior art includes a slower timing attack from S&P, a USENIX paper assuming the attack is impractical, and an open vendor advisory. Provide a structured review evaluating our positioning.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The novelty sentence addresses all three prior art points by highlighting channel speed, practicality assumption breaks, and root cause differences | Missed | Passed |
| The assessment includes the tag [Nearest 3 works] | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current CFP for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.
| Literature lane | Typical sources | What CCS reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Security big four | CCS, IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, NDSS proceedings | Whether the nearest attack/defense is compared or explicitly distinguished |
| Specialist venues | PETS/PoPETs, ESORICS, ACSAC, CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT | Whether the sub-community's known results are acknowledged |
| Practitioner record | CVEs, vendor advisories, CTF and exploit write-ups | Whether a known real-world case predates the claimed novelty |
A bibliography citing only academic papers while ignoring a well-known CVE that already demonstrated the attack is a recognizable CCS reject pattern that no amount of measurement polish repairs.
Imagine the paper reports a new cache side-channel that recovers keys from a TLS library. Its nearest neighbors: an S&P paper with a slower channel, a USENIX defense that assumed the channel was impractical, and a public CVE for a related timing bug. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — a faster channel than the S&P line, a break of the USENIX paper's practicality assumption, and a distinct root cause from the CVE.
test cases passed, vs 11 / 21 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.