IEEE S&P Supplementary Material
SkillDev toolsUse when deciding what goes in an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper's appendix versus the 13-page body, including the 5-page references-and-appendices allowance, the rule that reviewers need not read appendices, marking requirements past page 13, and what must never be relegated out of the reviewed body.
Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.
Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.
Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.
Then ask your AI: use the IEEE S&P Supplementary Material skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills in IEEE-SP-Skills/skills/ieeesp-supplementary/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Use this when splitting content between the body and the appendix. S&P's model is stricter than most: there is no separate supplement upload in the verified CFPs — everything is one PDF of at most 13 body pages plus at most 5 pages of references and appendices, 18 total, with all content past page 13 clearly marked as appendix and reviewers explicitly not required to read appendices (sp2027.ieee-security.org/cfpapers.html, checked 2026-07-08).
The rule that decides every split
If the acceptance case needs it, it lives on pages 1–13. The appendix is for material a convinced reviewer might verify, never for material that does the convincing.
| Content | Placement | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Threat model, all of it | Body | The claim is undefined without it |
| Adaptive-attack evaluation summary | Body | The defense's acceptance case |
| End-to-end exploit walkthrough (one target) | Body | Existence proof of the attack |
| Per-target breakdown across 30 targets | Appendix | Verification depth, not persuasion |
| Full protocol/proof details | Appendix, with theorem statements in body | Statements are claims; derivations are checks |
| Ethics considerations | Body (submission); dedicated section added at camera-ready doesn't count against limits | Reviewed substance |
| Extended related work | Appendix | Positioning core stays in body (ieeesp-related-work) |
| Measurement instrument details (query lists, scan configs) | Appendix | Reproducibility depth |
The 5-page arithmetic
References and appendices share the 5-page allowance. A security paper's bibliography routinely runs 2.5–3 pages in compsoc format, leaving perhaps two pages of real appendix. Consequences:
- Budget references first; the appendix gets the remainder.
- Long tables (per-CVE results, device lists) may need an artifact-repository home instead — but then nothing argumentative may depend on them.
- "Deferred to the extended version" is acceptable for proofs only if the paper states the theorem and its assumptions fully in the body; check the current CFP's stance on citing anonymous tech reports (待核实).
Marking and mechanics
- Everything after page 13 must be clearly labeled as appendix — a running "Appendix" heading structure, not a continuation of numbered sections that silently crosses the boundary.
- Appendix references from the body should be load-bearing pointers ("full derivation in App. B"), and the body sentence must still stand if the pointer is never followed.
- The appendix is inside the anonymous PDF: the same anonymization sweep
applies (
ieeesp-submission), including figure paths and dataset names that identify a lab.
Split audit — run over the section list:
for each body section: would a first-round reviewer cut the paper
without this? if no → appendix candidate
for each appendix item: does any *claim* in the body rely on it as
evidence? if yes → PROMOTE to body or weaken
the claim
page check: body ≤ 13 · refs+appendix ≤ 5 · total ≤ 18
· post-13 content labeled
Interplay with the Revise pathway
A Revise expectations summary often asks for material authors originally appendixed ("bring the adaptive evaluation into the main text"). Cheapest prevention: at first submission, put the summary statistics of every appendix experiment in the body with a pointer down — reviewers who can see the number rarely demand the relocation.
Anti-patterns from this venue's review piles
- The 13th page ends mid-evaluation and the "results continue" in Appendix A — reads as a page-limit dodge and draws the over-length flag.
- Proof-by-appendix: a body theorem whose stated assumptions differ from the appendix proof's actual assumptions.
- An appendix ethics discussion — at S&P ethics is reviewed substance and the registration form asks for it directly.
- Appendix-only artifacts descriptions when the availability statement in the body promises more than the appendix delivers.
Output format
[Page arithmetic] body <n>/13 · refs <n> + appendix <n> ≤ 5 · total <n>/18
[Marking] post-p13 labeled ✓/✗
[Promotion list] <appendix items the acceptance case secretly depends on>
[Demotion list] <body items a first-round reviewer would not miss>
[Anonymity] appendix swept ✓/✗
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 1k
- Forks
- 155
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
ieeesp-supplementary- Source
- github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills
github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills
Related picks
Skill · k-dense-ai
The pick for LaTeXlatex-drawing-guide
Skill · brycewang-stanford
The pick for LaTeXgolden-pdf-ch
Skill · yusufkaraaslan
The pick for PDFpdf-co-automation
Skill · composio-community
The pick for PDFhandsontable-playwright-e2e
Skill · handsontable
The pick for End-to-end testingmstar-e2e
Skill · btspoony
The pick for End-to-end testing