# Ccs Artifact Evaluation

Use when packaging ACM CCS artifacts for the artifact-evaluation committee and the ACM...

- Repository: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills (1346 stars)
- Category: Security
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-09-27
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ccs-artifact-evaluation -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ccs-artifact-evaluation -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ccs-artifact-evaluation -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ccs-artifact-evaluation -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`

## Description

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.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# CCS Artifact Evaluation

Use this for artifact packaging around CCS. CCS runs an optional artifact-evaluation process
after acceptance; passing artifacts earn ACM badges that appear on the paper's first page.
Reopen the current call for artifacts for the exact badge set, submission form, and deadlines.

## The ACM badge ladder

| Badge | What it certifies | What the committee does |
|---|---|---|
| Artifacts Available | The artifact is publicly archived with a stable identifier | Confirms the artifact is retrievable and permanent |
| Artifacts Evaluated - Functional | The artifact runs and does what the paper says | Executes it against the documented steps |
| Artifacts Evaluated - Reusable | It exceeds functional quality and others can reuse it | Judges structure, documentation, and reusability |
| Results Reproduced | The main paper results are independently reproduced | Reruns experiments and checks they support the claims |

Available is about archival permanence; Functional and Reusable are about quality; Results
Reproduced is the highest bar and requires the committee to regenerate your headline numbers.

## Artifact plan

- Decide which claims the artifact must support: the exploit, the defense overhead, the
  measurement pipeline, or the protocol implementation.
- Make the security claim turnkey: one documented command per headline result, with expected
  output, runtime, and the hardware assumed.
- Anonymize nothing at this stage, artifact evaluation is post-acceptance and single-blind or
  open, but do pin versions, dependencies, and a container so it runs on a clean machine.
- For dangerous artifacts (working exploits, malware, live attack tooling), gate access,
  document safe-handling, and follow the responsible-disclosure posture from the paper.
- Justify anything withheld: licensing, disclosure embargo, subject safety, or premature-release
  risk, and offer partial, synthetic, or redacted substitutes that still let evaluators check
  the method.

The rest: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/ACM-CCS-Skills/skills/ccs-artifact-evaluation/SKILL.md