Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/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.
Passed 17 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 22 without it.
and 8 more in the full report
9 fixed8 passed either way4 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We are re-submitting a revised systems security manuscript that was previously rejected at another conference last year. We intend to copy our old artifact availability statement verbatim without checking current venue guidelines. Evaluate our submission readiness.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The report advises checking the current cycle call for artifacts and CFP to verify updated availability expectations. | Passed | Passed |
| The output formats the findings under the five required bracketed section headers. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
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.
| Claim type | What full sharing looks like | Honest fallback when sharing is blocked |
|---|---|---|
| Exploit against deployed software | Runnable PoC plus target build | Redacted PoC, disclosed-and-patched note, synthetic target |
| Defense with overhead numbers | Instrumented build and benchmark scripts | Binaries plus measurement scripts if source is proprietary |
| Internet-scale measurement | Dataset plus collection tooling | Aggregated data with subject-privacy justification for the rest |
| Cryptographic protocol | Reference implementation and test vectors | Spec 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.
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.
test cases passed, vs 9 / 22 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.