Use when auditing an ACM CCS submission for HotCRP readiness, dual-cycle abstract registration and full-paper deadlines, the 12-page ACM sigconf body, anonymization, the ethics considerations appendix, artifact-availability posture, dual-submission policy, per-cycle submission caps, desk-reject triggers, and final-week sequencing.
SkillScore73Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 16 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 22 without it.
Without skill14%
With skill73%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Includes the exact bracketed header [Fix order] in the response
Includes the exact bracketed header [CCS readiness] in the response
Includes the exact bracketed header [Blocking checks] in the response
and 4 more in the full report
16 fixed0 passed either way3 still failing3 broke
Pass-rate lift
+59 pp
Tokens
+9%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-40%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v116 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 16 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 16
Prompt
We are citing our own workshop paper from last year in our ACM CCS submission. We wrote 'In our prior work [12], we showed...' to provide context. Is this phrasing compliant with double-blind guidelines?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Includes the exact bracketed header [Blocking checks] in the response
Missed
Passed
Advises citing prior personal publications strictly in the third person
Passed
Passed
case-07 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md69 linessingle file
CCS Submission
Use this for a CCS paper submission audit. Reopen the current Call for Papers, the cycle's
HotCRP site, the ACM sigconf template, and the ethics policy before giving deadline-ready
advice, because CCS rules and dates are set per cycle.
Submission audit
Confirm the target is the main CCS research track, not a workshop, poster, or the SIGSAC
co-located events.
Register the abstract in HotCRP before the registration deadline. CCS requires a mandatory
title, author list, abstract, and topics one week before the full-paper deadline; no
abstract, no paper. In 2026 registration led the paper deadline by seven days each cycle.
Apply the unaltered ACM sigconf two-column template. CCS 2026 set a 12-page main-text
limit excluding the bibliography, well-marked appendices, and supplementary material.
Whitespace and margin tampering is forbidden and is a desk-reject trigger.
Enforce anonymization: cite your own prior work in the third person, blind references only
where third-person phrasing is infeasible, and strip identity from text, PDF metadata,
system names, and repository links.
Place the ethics considerations content in a dedicated section (in 2026, an appendix after
the 12-page body and bibliography) whenever the work touches human subjects, user data, or
real-world vulnerabilities.
Respect the per-cycle submission cap (2026: at most 7 papers per author per cycle) and the
one-cycle rule — a first-cycle reject cannot return the same year.
Confirm the work is not concurrently under review at another archival venue.
Blocking risks
Missing abstract registration, or a late abstract or paper upload.
Overlength main text or an altered sigconf template.
Identity leak in the PDF, metadata, artifact link, or a non-blinded system name.
Missing ethics considerations section for work that plainly needs one.
Dual submission to another archival security venue.
A threat model too vague for reviewers to score the attacker.
Use when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.