Update to Cryptography Research Skills

{
  "description": "Draft or review AI-use disclosures and AI Methodology sections in cryptography papers from the actual account of assistance and human checking. Distinguish research, writing, code, experiments, and formalization; do not certify proofs or infer AI use.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 325
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/drafting-patterns.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 8314
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/source-evidence.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 10133
    }
  ],
  "name": "crypto-ai-acknowledgements",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: crypto-ai-acknowledgements\ndescription: Draft or review AI-use disclosures and AI Methodology sections in cryptography papers from the actual account of assistance and human checking. Distinguish research, writing, code, experiments, and formalization; do not certify proofs or infer AI use.\n---\n\n# Cryptography AI Acknowledgements\n\nWrite a concise, informative account of how the work developed, what AI and humans contributed, and what was actually checked. For a new full disclosure, prefer an **AI Methodology** section with a six-category checklist and free-form Details, following the September 2026 AITCS working-group proposal. Read the [methodology pattern and category thresholds](references/drafting-patterns.md) for that format. This is a recommended format, not an established venue requirement; preserve a requested short paragraph or local edit and the manuscript's existing placement and style.\n\n## Establish the facts\n\nUse the supplied account and available records. Distinguish proposals from adopted contributions, and attempted checks from successful ones. Do not infer an entire paper's history from this conversation, model capabilities, or another paper's disclosure.\n\nIdentify relevant contributions: research ideas and proofs; drafting and editing; code and experiments; formalization; and human direction, correction, extension, or checking. Distinguish originating an idea from expressing it. Credit a discarded candidate for its actual influence when material, without describing it as a final result. Name results or sections when helpful, using existing labels.\n\nFor material contributions, establish what the authors had already obtained and supplied to the tool, what it proposed, what they retained, revised, or extended, and how the resulting claims and attributions were checked. Include consequential errors, unsuccessful approaches, or limitations and their resolution when they explain the final work. Detail should be proportionate to the contribution; a list of tasks or a blanket assurance of checking does not supply this account.\n\nUse product and model/version only when known and useful; a product name does not identify its underlying model. Unknown optional versions need not block a draft. Reuse supplied facts; ask a compact factual question or use explicit provisional placeholders for a material unknown. Never fill gaps with assurances that all proofs were verified.\n\nWhen input provenance matters, distinguish the stated prompt from other known context, including supplied files, earlier conversations, or enabled memory. Do not assume the prompt exhausts the tool's context. For a reconstruction or reproducibility claim, specify the inputs received and information withheld, the checks and outputs, and any known context limitations; generating a second implementation alone does not establish independence or reproduced results.\n\n## Draft and check the allocation of credit\n\n- Describe substantive research assistance directly; do not reduce it to proofreading or inflate editorial help into discovery.\n- Name concrete human actions. Do not attribute a check to all coauthors or infer their agreement without support. Responsibility wording can express an agreed position or a clearly proposed clause; it does not establish verification.\n- Keep code review, functional tests, reproduced experiments, manual proof checking, and machine-checked formalization separate. Generated proof-assistant code needs a successful check before being called machine-checked; coverage and correspondence with the paper still matter. An agent's report does not establish human checking.\n- Preserve unrelated acknowledgements, LaTeX, and local edit scope. Drafting or review alone does not require editing a manuscript file.\n\nSeparate an AI suggestion's immediate source from its intellectual lineage: a model's proposal or failure to cite prior work does not establish originality. For substantive ideas, describe established connections to prior work and credit the sources where the ideas are first introduced or motivated, rather than relying solely on a related-work section. Consult original sources before asserting an attribution; flag unresolved lineage without inventing citations or claiming an exhaustive novelty search. A disclosure-only task need not expand into a literature survey.\n\nUse [drafting patterns](references/drafting-patterns.md) only when a starter clause would help; adapt it to supported facts. Use [source evidence](references/source-evidence.md) for example provenance or citation requests, reopening primary sources before making paper-exact claims. The selected examples establish neither community prevalence nor non-use where disclosures are absent.\n\nIf venue compliance is requested or constrains the draft, check the current official policy for the relevant year, track, and stage, with its date/version. Examples are not policy. If the policy is unavailable, state that limitation and continue fact-based drafting.\n\nReturn one usable paragraph or section, followed by material unresolved facts or policy qualifications. For the checklist format, justify answers from the contribution thresholds; an unknown is not No, and below-threshold assistance is not necessarily non-use. For review, identify concrete mismatches and offer minimal replacements. This disclosure reports a process; it is not a correctness certificate or an instruction to audit the paper's proofs.\n"
}