Ccs related work
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/ACM-CCS-Skills/skills/ccs-related-work
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ccs-related-workAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
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.
SKILL.md
3.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
CCS Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current CFP for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.
Positioning checks
- Separate a genuine security advance from an engineering increment: a new attack class, a broken assumption, a defense with a new guarantee, or a measurement that overturns received wisdom.
- Compare against all four top venues, not just CCS. A SIGSAC PC expects the nearest attack or defense from S&P, USENIX Security, and NDSS to be cited and distinguished.
- Credit the practitioner and disclosure record: relevant CVEs, vendor advisories, and public exploit write-ups count as prior art at CCS even when they are not peer-reviewed papers.
- Cite arXiv and preprint versions without breaking double-blind review; do not point reviewers to identity-revealing pages or your own advisory.
- Explain overlap with any concurrent disclosure and do not submit duplicate archival work.
- Use related work to sharpen the delta: a stronger attacker, a weaker assumption, a lower overhead, a wider measurement, or a defense where prior work had only detection.
Literature-lane table
| Literature lane | Typical sources | What CCS reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Security big four | CCS, IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, NDSS proceedings | Whether the nearest attack/defense is compared or explicitly distinguished |
| Specialist venues | PETS/PoPETs, ESORICS, ACSAC, CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT | Whether the sub-community's known results are acknowledged |
| Practitioner record | CVEs, vendor advisories, CTF and exploit write-ups | Whether a known real-world case predates the claimed novelty |
A bibliography citing only academic papers while ignoring a well-known CVE that already demonstrated the attack is a recognizable CCS reject pattern that no amount of measurement polish repairs.
Positioning vignette
Imagine the paper reports a new cache side-channel that recovers keys from a TLS library. Its nearest neighbors: an S&P paper with a slower channel, a USENIX defense that assumed the channel was impractical, and a public CVE for a related timing bug. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — a faster channel than the S&P line, a break of the USENIX paper's practicality assumption, and a distinct root cause from the CVE.
Concurrent-work judgment calls
- Independently concurrent arXiv or disclosure work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and avoid priority claims reviewers cannot verify.
- Your own prior workshop or poster version: usually citable and non-archival, but verify against the current CFP wording and phrase the citation to preserve double-blind review.
- When unsure whether a co-located CCS workshop counts as archival overlap, declare it in the submission form rather than gambling on a chair's reading.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest literatures] <big-four / specialist / practitioner record>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> distinction>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / issues>
[Novelty sentence] <CCS-ready contribution contrast>