Use when auditing LWE, Ring-LWE, Module-LWE, SIS-family, lattice KEM/signature/FHE/ZKP parameters, reductions, correctness failures, concrete attacks, estimator outputs, or implementation compatibility.
Scanned 9/7/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add jiayaoqijia/cryptoskill --skill riaomike-lattice-parameter-audit --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Riaomike Lattice Parameter Audit?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jiayaoqijia-riaomike-lattice-parameter-audit)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: lattice-parameter-audit
description: Use when auditing LWE, Ring-LWE, Module-LWE, SIS-family, lattice KEM/signature/FHE/ZKP parameters, reductions, correctness failures, concrete attacks, estimator outputs, or implementation compatibility.
---
# Lattice Parameter Audit
Audit formal assumptions, concrete attacks, correctness probability, and implementation compatibility separately. No single reduction or estimator run certifies a parameter set.
## Scope
In scope: exact lattice problem/structure, dimension/modulus/samples/distributions/norms, reductions, tail/smoothing/rejection/decryption failures, classical/quantum attacks, estimator reproducibility, parameter sensitivity, NTT/packing/gadget/noise compatibility.
Out of scope: claiming certified security without reproducible attack evaluation, side-channel certification, or silently selecting missing parameters.
## Required Inputs
- scheme/proof specification and exact parameter set;
- problem variant, algebraic structure, secret/error distributions, norms/bounds;
- target correctness and classical/quantum security levels/cost metrics;
- reduction claims, estimator/tool configuration, implementation regime.
## Success Criteria
- Exact LWE/SIS variant and parameter ledger are complete.
- Formal reduction assumptions/constraints and concrete deployed regime are compared.
- Correctness/decryption/rejection/statistical failures are derived and composed.
- Relevant primal, dual, decoding, hybrid, combinatorial, algebraic/structural, and implementation attacks are considered.
- Estimator/tool version, config, samples, memory, cost model, and reproducible inputs are recorded.
- Security sensitivity and margins are reported, not only one point estimate.
- Formal, concrete, correctness, and compatibility verdicts remain separate.
## Failure Modes
- Missing distribution/norm/structure: block affected bounds and estimates.
- Unreproducible estimator output: mark concrete security unverified.
- Reduction outside parameter regime: do not transfer worst-case foundation.
- Failure probability without workload composition: report per-operation only.
- Incompatible cost metrics or hidden memory/data: refuse bit-security comparison.
Never fabricate parameters, estimator runs, reduction applicability, attack costs, or failure rates.
## Workflow
1. Apply [protocol.md](references/protocol.md) to freeze the exact problem and parameter ledger.
2. Audit reductions, distributions/norms, correctness failures, attack surface, and concrete estimates.
3. Check implementation compatibility and parameter sensitivity.
4. Return four verdicts plus assumptions and unverified evidence.
5. Use [evaluation-scenarios.md](references/evaluation-scenarios.md) for future independent evaluation.
## Output Contract
Return: scheme/version; exact problem/structure; parameter ledger; reduction audit; distribution/norm audit; correctness/failure derivation; attack matrix; estimator reproducibility record; implementation compatibility; sensitivity/margins; blocking/major/minor findings; formal/concrete/correctness/compatibility verdicts.
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!