Update to Cryptography Research Skills

{
  "description": "Find and verify primary-source cryptography claims, compare paper versions, and synthesize literature or research methods with exact source locators. Use for citation checks and surveys; not for proof-validity audits or prose revision alone.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 260
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/evidence-method.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 11520
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/researcher-studies.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 7622
    }
  ],
  "name": "crypto-literature-evidence",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: crypto-literature-evidence\ndescription: Find and verify primary-source cryptography claims, compare paper versions, and synthesize literature or research methods with exact source locators. Use for citation checks and surveys; not for proof-validity audits or prose revision alone.\n---\n\n# Cryptography Literature Evidence\n\nEstablish what a source actually says and whether it applies to the question. Titles, search snippets, secondary summaries, and other agents' reports are discovery aids. Inspect the primary paper and relevant official artifact before relying on their technical claims.\n\n## Evidence workflow\n\n1. Fix the requested proposition and the axes that distinguish a match: relation/interface, model, parameters, guarantee, cost, or writing pattern. A keyword mention does not establish a formal definition or result.\n2. Identify the exact source version, date, and locator. Reconcile full, proceedings, appendix, and local versions; check current primary sources and errata when currentness or candidate viability matters.\n3. Separate source statements, paraphrases, calculations, interpretations, and unresolved inferences. Preserve reported versus derived values, units, denominators, and measured versus analytical evidence.\n4. Cross-check material claims against definitions, theorem premises, captions, footnotes, and appendices. Inspect rendered equations or tables when extraction is unreliable. Accurate attribution alone does not establish applicability to a different model, field, distribution, or setup.\n5. Report conflicting and contrary evidence. Do not strengthen a source's security guarantee, empirical status, or scope, or infer universal absence from an incomplete search.\n\nFor a single claim, give the conclusion, source/version, exact locator, and decisive qualification. For a survey, also state coverage, strict matches versus related discussions, inaccessible sources, and unresolved dependencies. No corpus worksheet is required for a narrow question.\n\n## Further detail\n\n- [Evidence method](references/evidence-method.md): multi-paper reviews, scoped novelty searches, version conflicts, numerical attribution, and completeness claims.\n- [Researcher studies](references/researcher-studies.md): attribution, reading depth, and conditional lessons from a researcher's or collaboration's work.\n\nLiterature review does not itself authorize manuscript edits. Source verification does not establish proof validity; use the proof-audit workflow when that is requested. Writing and implementation skills are optional follow-on help, not prerequisites. Theory-only research needs no code or experiments.\n"
}