ACM CCS Skills

A 12-skill depth pack for ACM CCS submissions: venue routing across the security big four, HotCRP dual-cycle submission checks, rebuttal strategy, threat-model writing, adaptive-attack evaluation, artifact evaluation with ACM badges, ethics appendices, and ACM camera-ready work. Grounded in the official CCS 2026 CFP, call for artifacts, HotCRP cycle sites, and SIGSAC pages checked on 2026-07-08.

by @brycewang-stanford 12 skills

Install

npx skillmds@latest add plugin:brycewang-stanford/acm-ccs-skills

One command, no setup. In Claude Code it lands as a managed plugin you can enable, disable or remove with /plugin. On any other agent it installs the 12 skills into that agent's own folder.

Or inside Claude Code

In the Plugins tab, add this marketplace:

skillmds/skillmd
/plugin install brycewang-stanford-acm-ccs-skills@skillmd

Adds the marketplace once; later plugins need the second line only.

Or install by hand

Download the plugin and unzip its skills/ folder into your agent's skills directory. Works with every agent, no CLI needed.

Download plugin Paths per agent

Just the markdown? SKILL.md files only.

This plugin

skills: 12
authors: 1

Published by a registry member. Review its skills before installing.

Skills in this plugin

▌
Ccs Workflow · brycewang-stanford
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.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Submission · brycewang-stanford
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.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Experiments · brycewang-stanford
Use when designing or auditing ACM CCS experiments, attack demonstrations, adaptive-attack defense evaluations, security measurements, baselines, overhead and cost reporting, ablations, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on evidence that survives an adversarial program committee rather than leaderboard wins.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford
Use when preparing an accepted ACM CCS paper for the ACM Digital Library proceedings, covering de-anonymization, the ACM sigconf final format, ACM rights and eRights forms, badge placement from artifact evaluation, incorporation of shepherd and minor-revision requirements, disclosure-timing coordination, registration, and in-person presentation.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Related Work · brycewang-stanford
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.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Supplementary · brycewang-stanford
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.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Writing Style · brycewang-stanford
Use when revising an ACM CCS paper for a precise threat model, calibrated attack/defense claims, 12-page ACM sigconf compression, double-blind wording, adaptive-evaluation honesty, and the security house style that survives an adversarial SIGSAC program committee.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Review Process · brycewang-stanford
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.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Author Response · brycewang-stanford
Use when drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford
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.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford
Use when deciding whether a security project fits ACM CCS versus IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, NDSS, PETS, or a crypto/theory venue, identifying the security contribution type, and sharpening the threat model and attacker capability before writing begins.

1k repo stars
▌
Ccs Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford
Use when packaging ACM CCS artifacts for the artifact-evaluation committee and the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, Artifacts Evaluated Reusable, and Results Reproduced — covering what security evaluators inspect, how to make attacks and defenses turnkey, and how to justify withheld artifacts.

1k repo stars