Use when preparing an NDSS artifact for evaluation after conditional acceptance — targeting the Available, Functional, and Reproduced badges, packaging attacks and measurements responsibly, writing the 2-page artifact appendix, and handling dangerous or embargoed material.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ndss-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ndss Artifact Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-ndss-artifact-evaluation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ndss-artifact-evaluation
description: Use when preparing an NDSS artifact for evaluation after conditional acceptance — targeting the Available, Functional, and Reproduced badges, packaging attacks and measurements responsibly, writing the 2-page artifact appendix, and handling dangerous or embargoed material.
---
# NDSS Artifact Evaluation
NDSS added artifact evaluation to the symposium in recent editions (running on the
community `secartifacts` platform, verified for 2024-2026), and it is **opt-in after
conditional acceptance** — a separate track, not a submission requirement. Papers that pass
carry badges on the first page and add a 2-page artifact appendix (Call for Artifacts,
checked 2026-07-08). Decide early whether you are engineering for it, because the packaging
choices are cheap during the project and expensive afterward.
## The three badges
| Badge | Claim to the committee | What you must ship |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Available** | The artifact is publicly, permanently retrievable | Deposit in an archival repository with a DOI (Zenodo, figshare); a bare GitHub URL is not "available" |
| **Functional** | It does what the paper says, is usable and documented | Build/run instructions that work on a clean machine; the components matching the paper's claims |
| **Reproduced** | The paper's results can be regenerated by others | One documented path per headline result, with expected output and tolerances |
Badges are independent — you can earn Available and Functional without Reproduced when the
world (live targets, proprietary data) genuinely prevents re-execution. Claim only what you
can defend; an evaluator who cannot reproduce a "Reproduced" claim writes that in the
report.
## From claims ledger to artifact
The `claims.yml` ledger built in `ndss-reproducibility` is the artifact's spine. Convert it
into an evaluator-facing package:
```text
artifact/
README.md # what this is, badges sought, hardware/time needs, safety notes
INSTALL.md # clean-machine setup; pinned deps / container image
claims/ # one entry per headline result:
fig4/ run.sh # → expected_output/, runtime + resource note
tab2/ run.sh
data/ # snapshots or synthetic substitutes (never raw victim traffic)
src/ # the code, with the dangerous parts gated (below)
ETHICS.md # disclosure status, gating rationale, usage boundaries
```
Give evaluators the shortest true path to each result. A "kick-the-tires" phase means the
first five minutes decide the evaluator's mood — make the smoke test one command.
## Packaging dangerous material responsibly
NDSS artifacts routinely include working exploits, attack tooling, or malware-adjacent
code. This is allowed; unbounded release is not.
- **Gate the weaponized parts.** Ship the analysis and measurement pipeline openly; put
live exploit modules behind documented access conditions or a defanged demonstration
mode consistent with your Ethics Considerations section.
- **Align with the disclosure clock.** If a vulnerability is under a coordinated-disclosure
embargo, the artifact's release timing must respect it — state the date the full module
becomes available.
- **Sandbox by default.** Anything that touches a network should target a supplied local
testbed, not the Internet, out of the box. Document the blast radius.
- **No live victim data.** Replace with prefix-preserved or synthetic traces carrying the
statistics the result needs (see `ndss-reproducibility`).
## When re-execution needs your lab
Hardware-bound results (SDRs, specific switches, IoT devices) cannot be reproduced by a
committee at their desks. Bridge the gap: provide recorded traces plus a replay harness so
the *analysis* is reproducible even when the *capture* is not, and say plainly in the
README which results are trace-replayable and which need the physical setup. This commonly
yields Functional + Reproduced-on-recorded-data rather than a failed full Reproduced.
## The 2-page artifact appendix
Written after evaluation for the camera-ready. It states the badges earned, the artifact's
scope, access instructions (the DOI), hardware/software requirements, and the mapping from
paper claims to artifact components. Keep it factual and navigational — it is a map for
future readers of the open-access paper, not a second results section.
## Timing
The opt-in comes shortly after (conditional) acceptance and runs on its own schedule
(2027 dates 待核实 — confirm on the Call for Artifacts). It overlaps the camera-ready
window (Jan 6, 2027), so a team that starts packaging at acceptance, not at the AE
deadline, avoids a two-front crunch.
## Output format
```text
[Badges targeted] Available / Functional / Reproduced — with feasibility per badge
[Package status] README / INSTALL / per-claim runners / data substitutes — done or gaps
[Danger handling] gated modules, sandbox default, disclosure-aligned release date
[Hardware gap] results needing physical setup + trace-replay bridge
[Appendix] 2-page artifact appendix drafted? claim→component map complete?
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!