Use when preparing ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security paper.
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 17 of 22 without it.
Without skill77%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Recommends placing the ethics section in an appendix after the bibliography
Requires cross-referencing all appendix sections from the main paper body text
Specifies ethics section placement as an appendix after the bibliography for CCS
3 fixed17 passed either way2 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+14 pp
Tokens
-5%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-46%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v120 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 3
Prompt
We are submitting a security research paper involving human subjects data to ACM CCS 2026. Should we place the IRB approval and harm mitigation discussion directly in Section 2 of the main 12-page body, or in an appendix? Format your response using [Supplement status], [Files], [Ethics section], [Anonymity checks], and [Main-paper dependency].
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Recommends placing the ethics section in an appendix after the bibliography
Missed
Passed
case-04 · 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.md59 linessingle file
CCS Supplementary
Use this when assembling CCS appendices and supplementary material. At CCS the main 12-page
body must let reviewers judge novelty and soundness on its own; appendices support it but the
committee is not obligated to read them.
Supplement structure
Put formal proofs, full protocol transcripts, extra measurements, and additional evaluation
tables in well-marked appendices after the bibliography.
Place the ethics considerations content where the CFP directs it. CCS 2026 required a
dedicated ethics section as an appendix after the 12-page body and the bibliography for work
touching human subjects, user data, or real-world vulnerabilities.
Keep every supplementary file double-blind: no authors, institutions, acknowledgements,
private paths, repository owners, or identifying metadata, including in code and datasets.
Do not hide the core threat model, the main attack description, the headline defense, or the
primary evidence in an appendix; a paper whose contribution is only legible with the
appendix reads as unreviewable within the page limit.
Verify archives open on a clean machine and carry no credentials, cache directories, or OS
metadata that leaks identity.
Appendix architecture for a security paper
Order appendix sections to mirror the body: threat model details, then proofs, then extended
attack variants, then measurement tables, then the ethics section where required.
Restate each theorem or protocol step before its full derivation so the appendix reads
standalone without flipping back to the two-column body.
Cross-reference every appendix table and proof from the body at least once; orphaned
material is invisible under reviewer discretion.
Keep the ethics section self-contained: disclosure timeline, harm-minimization steps, IRB or
ERB status, and the reasoning, so the ethics reviewer can grade it without hunting.
What gets opened first
Supplement item
Inspection likelihood
Practical implication
Ethics considerations section
High for sensitive work
Write it to stand alone and answer the obvious concern