usenixsec-workflow

name	usenixsec-workflow
description	Use when planning a USENIX Security Symposium project end to end — choosing between the two annual cycles, mapping the registration-to-camera-ready calendar for a chosen cycle, sequencing artifact and ethics work early, and coordinating a team across the multi-deadline Big-Four calendar.

USENIX Security Workflow

USENIX Security runs two independent submission cycles per year, so "when do we submit?" is a real strategic choice, not a fixed date. This skill turns a target cycle into a dated backward plan and assigns owners to the venue-specific risks. Dates below are the '26/'27 cycle values read on 2026-07-08 (via search renderings; usenix.org direct fetch 403'd) — reconfirm against the live CFP.

Step 1: pick the cycle

Consideration	Favors the earlier cycle	Favors the later cycle
Readiness	Evaluation truly done now	Needs one more experiment done right
Conference lead time	Cycle-1 accepts publish ~7 months pre-symposium	Cycle-2 accepts closer to the event
Competing deadlines	Avoids clashing with a CCS/S&P/NDSS date	Room to route a reject to the next venue
Resubmission runway	Reject still leaves the same-year second cycle open*	Reject pushes to next year

*Subject to the cycle's resubmission-restriction text — the '26 CFP delegated Cycle-2 reject restrictions to the '27 chairs, so verify before assuming a reject can re-enter (see usenixsec-review-process).

Reference calendar (verify per cycle):

Milestone	Sec '26 C1	Sec '26 C2	Sec '27 C1	Sec '27 C2
Registration	Aug 19 '25	Jan 29 '26	Aug 18 '26	Jan 19 '27
Submission	Aug 26 '25	Feb 5 '26	Aug 25 '26	Jan 26 '27
Early reject	Oct 7 '25	Mar 17 '26	待核实	待核实
Notification	Dec 4 '25	May 14 '26	待核实	待核实
Finals	Jan 15 '26	Jun 11 '26	待核实	待核实
Symposium	Aug 12–14 '26 (Baltimore)	Aug 11–13 '27 (Denver)

Step 2: backward-plan from the registration date

Registration, not submission, is the first hard wall (it freezes title, abstract, authors, conflicts a week early). Plan backward from it:

T-12 wk  Topic/venue fit locked (usenixsec-topic-selection); threat model drafted
T-10 wk  Core experiments running; artifact repo scaffolded from day one
T-8  wk  Related-work sweep of all Big-Four cycles closed since last pass
T-6  wk  Adaptive-attacker / base-rate experiments (the ones that get demanded)
T-4  wk  Full draft; Ethical Considerations + Open Science appendices written
T-3  wk  Internal review + cold-reader pass on intro/threat model
T-2  wk  Anonymization sweep; artifact anonymous mirror live and tested
T-1  wk  REGISTRATION: freeze metadata; final polish only after this
T-0      Submit; re-download from HotCRP and read cold

The two moves teams most often leave too late: the adaptive-attacker experiment (defenses) and the ethics/disclosure timeline (live-system work). Both must start weeks before the deadline — a disclosure clock especially cannot be compressed, since vendors set the pace.

Step 3: assign the venue-specific risks

Risk	Owner	Early mitigation
Ethics/disclosure not started	PI	Open the disclosure and IRB threads at project start
Artifact not reproducible	Eng lead	Build the repo alongside the code, not after the paper
Threat model drifts from eval	First author	Adversary-consistency review at T-3 wk
Anonymity leak in artifact	Eng lead	Anonymous mirror built and log-out-tested by T-2 wk
Missed a fresh Big-Four paper	Reader	Dated literature sweep at T-8, re-sweep at T-2

Step 4: run the post-submission and post-decision phases

• Waiting: expect the early-reject gate first (a survivable-but-quiet signal), then full notification. Do not start the next paper assuming acceptance, but do keep the artifact repo warm — acceptance starts the Phase-1 clock immediately.
• Shepherd approval: scope the change list within 48 hours; it fits a two-week window and no more (see usenixsec-author-response).
• Accept: run camera-ready and Phase-1 artifact availability in parallel — they share a deadline (see usenixsec-camera-ready).
• Reject: mine the reviews, check the resubmission restriction, decide between the next USENIX cycle and a sibling venue with an open deadline.

Coordinating across the Big-Four calendar

Because USENIX Security, CCS, S&P, and NDSS each run multiple deadlines, a lab can keep a paper in motion nearly year-round — but a paper may sit under review at only one archival venue at a time. Maintain a shared deadline board and a one-in-one-out rule per paper; the dual-submission bar is real and enforced.

Reverify each cycle

• All dates in the table above ('27 review/notification/finals are 待核实).
• Symposium location and dates for your target year.
• Resubmission restrictions gating cycle-to-cycle and year-to-year moves.

Output format

[Cycle chosen] which cycle + why (readiness / lead time / clash / runway)
[Backward plan] dated milestones from registration wall
[Risk owners] the five venue risks assigned + early mitigations underway
[Post-decision] branch plan for accept / shepherd / reject