# Ccs Author Response

Use when drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window...

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

## Description

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.

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

# CCS Author Response

Use this after CCS reviews are released. Reopen the current HotCRP rebuttal instructions and
any length or format limits before drafting, because response mechanics are set per cycle.

## Triage

- Answer concerns that affect the decision: threat-model soundness, novelty, correctness,
  evidence quality, ethics, and disclosure. Skip cosmetic complaints unless space allows.
- Use evidence already in the submission: sections, appendices, measurement tables, and the
  ethics section. The rebuttal clarifies the submitted paper; it does not add a new paper.
- Keep the reply anonymous. Do not reveal institution, authorship, private URLs, or the
  identity of a disclosed vendor if that would deanonymize you.
- Correct factual misreadings first, then address the strongest objection to the attacker
  model or the adaptive evaluation.
- Do not promise experiments you cannot run before camera-ready; promise only edits that add
  no unsupported claim.

## Drafting pattern

1. State the decision-critical correction or concession in the first line.
2. Point to exact submitted evidence (section, figure, appendix).
3. Explain the security consequence, why the attack still holds, or the defense still binds.
4. Offer a scoped camera-ready edit only where it clarifies without over-claiming.

## Adversarial reviewer pushback patterns

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