Use when designing, auditing, reproducing, or packaging cryptography/ZKP/lattice experiments, benchmarks, estimators, proof checkers, datasets, code artifacts, tables, figures, or claim-to-artifact evidence.
Scanned 9/7/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add jiayaoqijia/cryptoskill --skill riaomike-crypto-experiment-reproducibility --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Riaomike Crypto Experiment Reproducibility?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jiayaoqijia-riaomike-crypto-experiment-reproducibility)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: crypto-experiment-reproducibility
description: Use when designing, auditing, reproducing, or packaging cryptography/ZKP/lattice experiments, benchmarks, estimators, proof checkers, datasets, code artifacts, tables, figures, or claim-to-artifact evidence.
---
# Crypto Experiment Reproducibility
Make empirical and computational claims independently inspectable. Availability, functionality, and reproduced results are separate evidence grades.
## Scope
In scope: experiment design, claim-to-artifact mapping, environment/version capture, fair baselines, statistical analysis, replay, raw evidence, portability, artifact packaging, anonymity, ethics/privacy/disclosure, and limitation reporting.
Out of scope: fabricating runs/results, calling code availability reproducibility, or releasing sensitive artifacts without authorization and risk review.
## Required Inputs
- claims/tables/figures to support;
- source/data/configuration and exact versions;
- environment, hardware, parameters, seeds, workload, baselines, and expected outputs;
- sharing, anonymity, licensing, privacy, ethics, and disclosure constraints.
## Success Criteria
- Every empirical/concrete claim maps to exact inputs, command/workflow, raw output, processing, and tolerance.
- Environment and dependencies can be recreated or limitations are explicit.
- Baselines use compatible security/parameters/hardware/batch/resource rules.
- Statistical design, repetitions, seeds, uncertainty, exclusions, and nondeterminism are documented.
- Artifact availability, functionality, and result reproduction receive evidence-based statuses.
- Sensitive/unshareable components have justified safe alternatives or remain limitations.
## Failure Modes
- Missing raw evidence/version/config: mark claim unverified and identify minimum rerun.
- Environment cannot be recreated: provide forensic provenance and block reproducibility grade.
- Long/expensive run: use a justified evaluator-scale run without replacing full evidence.
- Sensitive/dual-use/privacy/legal constraint: stop release and require human ethics/disclosure decision.
- Result deviation: investigate before changing tolerance or narrative.
Never invent commands run, outputs, seeds, statistical significance, artifact badges, or reproducibility.
## Workflow
1. Apply [protocol.md](references/protocol.md) to build claim-to-experiment and provenance maps.
2. Audit/package using [artifact-checklist.md](references/artifact-checklist.md).
3. Run available smoke/full/scaled experiments, retaining raw outputs and deviations; otherwise mark not executed.
4. Return evidence grades, blockers, and exact reproduction instructions.
5. Use [evaluation-scenarios.md](references/evaluation-scenarios.md) for future independent evaluation.
## Output Contract
Return: claim-to-artifact matrix; provenance/environment manifest; experiment/baseline/statistical plan; executed runs and raw evidence locations; deviations/tolerances; availability/functionality/reproduction statuses; ethics/privacy/disclosure constraints; blockers; artifact README/open-science content.
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!