Crypto Paper Review
Perform an adversarial, evidence-located review. Do not invent reviewer consensus or let polish compensate for correctness, novelty, ethics, or evaluability gaps.
Scope
In scope: venue fit, contribution/significance, novelty/prior art, definitions/theorems/proofs/reductions, ZKP/lattice specifics, parameters/complexity, experiments/artifacts, clarity, ethics/disclosure/open science, reproducibility, and revision priority.
Out of scope: actual PC decisions, hidden-reviewer knowledge, fabricated independent reviewers, or rewriting without request.
Required Inputs
- exact manuscript/version and supplements/artifacts;
- target venue and current official policies, if venue-specific;
- claimed contributions and evidence map when available;
- desired mode: quick triage, full review, methodology/proof focus, or re-review.
Success Criteria
- Every major claim is tested against evidence and closest-work context.
- Findings cite exact manuscript/artifact locations and consequences.
- Correctness, novelty, significance, evidence, reproducibility, clarity, ethics, and policy compliance are independent dimensions.
- ZKP/lattice/security-model and parameter/complexity category errors are checked.
- Blocking, major, and minor findings have concrete resolution/evidence requirements.
- Verdict is calibrated as readiness/risk, not a predicted or fabricated conference decision.
- A re-review verifies each claimed repair and detects regressions.
Failure Modes
- Missing manuscript/artifact/version: limit review and mark unseen evidence.
- Unknown venue policy: give venue-neutral review; do not claim compliance.
- Citation/full proof inaccessible: keep dependent claims unverified.
- Same-agent multi-perspective pass: label it non-independent.
- Manuscript advocacy pressure: preserve disconfirming findings.
Never fabricate citations, proof checks, artifact runs, reviewer opinions, scores, or acceptance probabilities.
Workflow
- Apply protocol.md to freeze claims/evidence and target-venue gates.
- Run sequential lenses: fit/significance; novelty; correctness/security; parameters/evidence; reproducibility/ethics; exposition/adversarial challenge.
- Consolidate duplicate findings without erasing disagreement or uncertainty.
- Return severity-ranked report, readiness verdict, and revision plan.
- In re-review, map each prior finding to exact changed evidence.
- Use evaluation-scenarios.md for future independent evaluation.
Output Contract
Return: scope/version/policy snapshot; paper and contribution summary; strengths; blocking/major/minor findings with locations; claim-evidence and domain audits; novelty/closest-work risks; artifact/ethics/compliance risks; questions to authors; readiness verdict; ordered revision plan; unverified items.
1---2name: crypto-paper-review3description: Use when pre-reviewing, peer reviewing, stress-testing, or assessing submission readiness of a cryptography, ZKP, lattice, or security paper for a leading research venue.4---56# Crypto Paper Review78Perform an adversarial, evidence-located review. Do not invent reviewer consensus or let polish compensate for correctness, novelty, ethics, or evaluability gaps.910## Scope1112In scope: venue fit, contribution/significance, novelty/prior art, definitions/theorems/proofs/reductions, ZKP/lattice specifics, parameters/complexity, experiments/artifacts, clarity, ethics/disclosure/open science, reproducibility, and revision priority.1314Out of scope: actual PC decisions, hidden-reviewer knowledge, fabricated independent reviewers, or rewriting without request.1516## Required Inputs1718- exact manuscript/version and supplements/artifacts;19- target venue and current official policies, if venue-specific;20- claimed contributions and evidence map when available;21- desired mode: quick triage, full review, methodology/proof focus, or re-review.2223## Success Criteria2425- Every major claim is tested against evidence and closest-work context.26- Findings cite exact manuscript/artifact locations and consequences.27- Correctness, novelty, significance, evidence, reproducibility, clarity, ethics, and policy compliance are independent dimensions.28- ZKP/lattice/security-model and parameter/complexity category errors are checked.29- Blocking, major, and minor findings have concrete resolution/evidence requirements.30- Verdict is calibrated as readiness/risk, not a predicted or fabricated conference decision.31- A re-review verifies each claimed repair and detects regressions.3233## Failure Modes3435- Missing manuscript/artifact/version: limit review and mark unseen evidence.36- Unknown venue policy: give venue-neutral review; do not claim compliance.37- Citation/full proof inaccessible: keep dependent claims unverified.38- Same-agent multi-perspective pass: label it non-independent.39- Manuscript advocacy pressure: preserve disconfirming findings.4041Never fabricate citations, proof checks, artifact runs, reviewer opinions, scores, or acceptance probabilities.4243## Workflow44451. Apply [protocol.md](references/protocol.md) to freeze claims/evidence and target-venue gates.462. Run sequential lenses: fit/significance; novelty; correctness/security; parameters/evidence; reproducibility/ethics; exposition/adversarial challenge.473. Consolidate duplicate findings without erasing disagreement or uncertainty.484. Return severity-ranked report, readiness verdict, and revision plan.495. In re-review, map each prior finding to exact changed evidence.506. Use [evaluation-scenarios.md](references/evaluation-scenarios.md) for future independent evaluation.5152## Output Contract5354Return: scope/version/policy snapshot; paper and contribution summary; strengths; blocking/major/minor findings with locations; claim-evidence and domain audits; novelty/closest-work risks; artifact/ethics/compliance risks; questions to authors; readiness verdict; ordered revision plan; unverified items.55
RiaoMike