game-security-research-rigor

name	game-security-research-rigor
description	Guide for evidence-grounded game-security research, citation verification, uncertainty, reproducible analysis, and detector evaluation. Use when validating technical claims, synthesizing README or wiki resources, comparing security techniques, assessing telemetry or models, or deciding whether evidence supports an anti-cheat conclusion.

Game Security Research Rigor

Purpose

Use this skill with the relevant domain skill. Its job is to keep conclusions no stronger than the evidence and to make factual, empirical, and operational claims independently checkable.

Separate the reasoning layers

Never collapse these layers:

1. Observation — the raw artifact or measurement.
2. Finding — a rule, baseline, or invariant was violated.
3. Attribution — a hypothesis about cause or actor intent.
4. Decision — a risk-based response to the supported conclusion.

An anomaly, hash mismatch, or invariant violation establishes a finding only under the stated measurement assumptions. It does not by itself prove cheating, malicious intent, or the responsible actor.

Research workflow

1. Scope the question
   • Identify object, platform, game/build, mode, timeframe, trust boundaries, available evidence, and the consequence of a wrong conclusion.
   • State what is outside scope.
2. Acquire evidence
   • Prefer primary artifacts for version-specific behavior: source code, specifications, raw telemetry, traces, binaries, and official changelogs.
   • Use peer-reviewed or independently reproduced work for generalization.
   • Treat vendor posts and community reports as claim-bearing sources, not automatic proof.
3. Verify every citation
   • Confirm the URL or DOI resolves.