Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› financial-cryptography-and-data-security
financial-cryptography-and-data-security
GitHub用于评估稿件是否符合金融密码学与数据安全（FC）会议标准，提供定位、重构、证据核查及拒稿风险分析。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定FC为目标会议
需评估金融密码学稿件的会议适配度
需将期刊或arXiv风格重构为CS会议叙事
需要针对该会议的证据缺口、匿名性或反驳策略诊断
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill financial-cryptography-and-data-security -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "financial-cryptography-and-data-security",
"description": "Use when targeting Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for financial security."
}
Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC)
Conference positioning
Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) is a top computer-science conference venue for financial cryptography, blockchain, digital assets, payment systems, economics, and security. It rewards a financial-security paper with technical mechanism and economic or operational context. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
- The author names FC / Financial Cryptography and Data Security as the target venue.
- A manuscript in financial cryptography needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: financial cryptography, blockchain, digital assets, payment systems, economics, and security.
- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
- The paper should explain why the result matters to FC's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
- Reviewer lens: Treat FC as a financial security venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: financial cryptography, blockchain, digital assets, payment systems, economics, and security.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: financial, cryptography, blockchain, digital, assets, payment, economics, security, venue-specific, contribution, fc26, ifca.
- Official anchor domain: fc26.ifca.ai. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Route to FC when the security contribution is financial cryptography, blockchain, payment systems, digital assets, financial privacy, or market/security intersections.
- Compare CHES for crypto hardware, PETS for privacy, CCS/S&P/USENIX for broad security, and economics/finance venues when the contribution is empirical finance.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What FC is. The Financial Cryptography and Data Security conference — cryptographic protocols for finance, payments, and blockchain/data security.
- Real neighbors. CCS / IEEE S&P (security) and CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT (crypto theory) — finance/blockchain-flavored.
- vs AsiaCCS. AsiaCCS is general regional security; FC is the finance/crypto-applications venue.
FC-specific routing detail
- Prefer FC when the security contribution is financial: payments, blockchains, digital assets, economic incentives, market abuse, financial privacy, or applied cryptography in financial systems.
- Route general computer security to AsiaCCS/CCS/S&P/USENIX/NDSS, and privacy-first protocols or measurements to PETS when finance is not the main object.
- FC evidence should combine threat model, economic or protocol assumptions, adversary incentives, empirical or formal validation, and implications for financial systems.
Method & evidence bar
- Define the threat model, attacker capabilities, disclosure posture, and ethics review before presenting results.
- Use realistic targets, baselines, and measurement methodology; avoid sensational claims unsupported by evidence.
- For defenses, evaluate adaptive attacks and deployment costs; for attacks, document responsible handling.
- For FC, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a financial-security paper with technical mechanism and economic or operational context.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Make the security claim precise: vulnerability class, adversary model, defense guarantee, or measurement finding.
- Explain impact without overstating exploitability beyond the tested conditions.
- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://fc26.ifca.ai/
- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
- Confirm the review workflow and portal: the current security-conference CFP, ethics/disclosure policy, artifact policy, and submission system.
- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at FC, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
- The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
- Related work includes the nearest current-cycle financial security papers and explains the technical delta.
- The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
- The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Vague threat model or unhandled ethical risk.
- Defense evaluated only against weak or non-adaptive attacks.
- Measurement paper with biased sampling and no validation.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving FC reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses FC's bar, compare against ieee-symposium-on-security-and-privacy / usenix-security-symposium / acm-conference-on-computer-and-communications-security / network-and-distributed-system-security-symposium. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:42
