Cybersecurity conference
Black Hat-informed criteria: novelty, technical depth, practical value, evidence, neutrality, disclosure, and program fit.
Independent CFP coaching // runs in your browser
Make the research impossible to miss.
Stress-test your title, abstract, outline, and supporting details through two different review lenses before a program committee sees them.
01 Your draft stays local
02 Venue-specific criteria
03 Concrete revision priorities
Choose the room
Same research. Different questions.
Hacker conference
DEF CON-informed criteria: a real break, hacker relevance, an outline containing the attack, concrete targets, and credible first-hand work.
Combined check
Runs both lenses, keeps their scores separate, and surfaces shared concerns and useful disagreements.
The pre-check
Show us what you actually did.
This pass checks what is on the page. Unknown information stays unknown; it is never treated as a clean answer.
Your pre-check
Review results
01
Fix first
02
Already working
03
Field-by-field read
04
Questions the draft leaves open
This is an independent coaching tool, not an acceptance prediction or an official review. The automated pass cannot verify novelty or decide whether the research is interesting; use the AI packet for a careful reading pass and verify prior art yourself.
Field manuals
Write for the review in front of you.
Public guidance translated into practical advice for submitters.
Cybersecurity CFP Field Guide
Novelty, usable outcomes, disclosure, vendor neutrality, and the detailed outline reviewers need to evaluate the work.
Hacker Conference CFP Field Guide
Show the break, name the target, prove first-hand access, and make the outline carry the attack.
Portable review kits
Bring the rubric to your own AI.
Each ZIP is a self-contained skill folder. The Markdown version works as a copy-and-paste system prompt in assistants that do not install skills.
01
Cybersecurity CFP Review
Black Hat-informed review for research and professional security conferences.
02
Hacker CFP Review
DEF CON-informed review for hacker conferences and offensive security CFPs.
03
Combined CFP Review
Runs both profiles, explains disagreement, and produces one revision plan.
Method & boundaries
A stress test, with the uncertainty left in.
Built from experience and outcomes. The criteria draw on public conference rules, historical submission outcomes, and long-running CFP review projects. No private submission, reviewer identity, or individual review comment ships with this site.
Scores describe the draft. They are structured coaching signals, not probabilities. Program balance, competition, reviewer judgment, and the research itself remain outside a text check.
Current rules still win. Read the target conference's current CFP. Black Hat's published terms currently permit AI editing of author-written text and prior-art assistance, while prohibiting AI-generated submission text.
Independent and unofficial. CFP Hacker is not affiliated with or endorsed by Black Hat or DEF CON. Those names identify the conference-specific sources that informed the two review profiles. The public tool and skills are released under the MIT License.