本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

systems-paper-writing

Comprehensive guide for writing systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides paragraph-level structural blueprints, writing patterns, venue-specific checklists, reviewer guidelines, LaTeX templates, and conference deadlines. Use this skill for all systems conference paper writing.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(16)

  • SKILL.md14.0 KB
  • references/checklist.md11.6 KB
  • references/reviewer-guidelines.md4.5 KB
  • references/section-blueprints.md16.1 KB
  • references/systems-conferences.md10.0 KB
  • references/writing-patterns.md9.2 KB
  • templates/asplos2027/main.tex15.5 KB
  • templates/asplos2027/references.bib5.1 KB
  • templates/nsdi2027/main.tex14.7 KB
  • templates/nsdi2027/references.bib5.7 KB
  • templates/nsdi2027/usenix-2020-09.sty2.2 KB
  • templates/osdi2026/main.tex14.4 KB
  • templates/osdi2026/references.bib5.6 KB
  • templates/osdi2026/usenix-2020-09.sty2.2 KB
  • templates/sosp2026/main.tex17.0 KB
  • templates/sosp2026/references.bib5.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Systems Paper Writing: Paragraph-Level Structural Blueprint

Fine-grained structural guidance for writing 10–12 page systems papers targeting top systems venues: OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. This skill provides page allocation per section, paragraph-level blueprints, and writing patterns distilled from authoritative guides and best-paper analysis.

When to Use This Skill

ScenarioUse This SkillUse ml-paper-writing Instead
Structuring a 12-page OSDI/SOSP paper✅
Page budget and paragraph planning✅
Systems-specific evaluation structure✅
General ML paper writing philosophy✅
Citation verification workflow✅
LaTeX templates and formatting✅
NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR paper structure✅

Boundary: ml-paper-writing provides general writing philosophy, multi-venue templates, and citation verification. This skill focuses exclusively on paragraph-level structural blueprints for systems conferences.


Authoritative Sources

This blueprint synthesizes guidance from established systems researchers:

  1. Levin & Redell — "How (and How Not) to Write a Good Systems Paper" (SOSP'83 PC Chairs, USENIX/ACM SIGOPS)
  2. Irene Zhang (MSR/UW) — "Hints on how to write an SOSP paper" (SOSP/OSDI PC)
  3. Gernot Heiser (UNSW, seL4) — Style Guide + Paper Writing Talk
  4. Timothy Roscoe (ETH Zürich) — "Writing reviews for systems conferences"
  5. Mike Dahlin (UT Austin/Google) — "Giving a Conference Talk"
  6. Yi Ding — "How to write good systems papers?"
  7. hzwer & DingXiaoH — WritingAIPaper (GitHub 1.3k+ stars)

Full citations and URLs: see references/section-blueprints.md.


12-Page Systems Paper Blueprint

Overview: Page Allocation

SectionPagesPurpose
Abstract~0.25150–250 words, 5-sentence structure
S1 Introduction1.5–2Problem → Gap → Insight → Contributions
S2 Background & Motivation1–1.5Terms + Production observations
S3 Design3–4Architecture + Module details + Alternatives
S4 Implementation0.5–1Prototype details, LOC, key engineering
S5 Evaluation3–4Setup + End-to-end + Microbenchmarks + Scalability
S6 Related Work1Grouped by methodology, explicit comparison
S7 Conclusion0.53-sentence summary
Total~12Submission: 12 pages strict (USENIX) / 11 pages (ACM ASPLOS). Camera-ready: up to 14 pages (USENIX) / 13 pages (ACM). Ranges above span submission through camera-ready. Target 12 pages for initial submission. References unlimited.

Abstract (150–250 words, 5 sentences)

Sentence 1: Problem context and importance
Sentence 2: Gap in existing approaches
Sentence 3: Key insight or thesis ("X is better for Y in environment Z")
Sentence 4: Summary of approach and key results
Sentence 5: Broader impact or availability

Source: Levin & Redell — "Can you state the new idea concisely? Use them in the abstract." Irene Zhang — "The abstract is harder to write because you cannot use terms or concepts you introduced in the paper."

S1 Introduction (1.5–2 pages)

Paragraph structure:

  1. Problem statement (~0.5 page) — Establish the domain and why it matters. Use concrete numbers (cluster sizes, workload statistics, latency requirements).
  2. Gap analysis (~0.5 page) — Enumerate specific gaps G1–Gn in existing systems. Each gap is one sentence with evidence.
  3. Key insight (1 paragraph) — The thesis statement: "X is better for applications Y running in environment Z." (Irene Zhang formula)
  4. Contributions (~0.5 page) — Numbered list of 3–5 concrete contributions. Each contribution is testable and maps to a section.

Writing pattern: hzwer Move 1 (Establish territory) → Move 2 (Find niche) → Move 3 (Occupy niche).

Source: Irene Zhang — "clearly state your target environment (Z) and application (Y)" + "clearly state why previous systems do not meet the needs"; Levin & Redell — "What exactly is the problem being solved?"

S2 Background & Motivation (1–1.5 pages)

Paragraph structure:

  1. Technical background (~0.5 page) — Define terms and systems the reader needs. Follow Gernot Heiser's "define-before-use" principle.
  2. Production observations (~0.5–1 page) — Present Observation 1, 2, 3 from real data or measurements. Each observation leads to a design insight.

Source: Irene Zhang — "clearly motivate Y and Z. Why is application Y important?"; Gernot Heiser — "define-before-use."

S3 Design (3–4 pages)

Paragraph structure:

  1. System architecture overview (~0.5 page) — Architecture diagram first (Yi Ding: "draw a picture first"). One-paragraph walkthrough of major components and data flow.
  2. Module-by-module design (~2–2.5 pages) — Each subsection: what the module does, the design choice made, alternatives considered, and why this choice wins.
  3. Design alternatives and trade-offs (~0.5–1 page) — For each major decision, explicitly discuss what was not chosen and why.

Source: Irene Zhang — "Every design choice made in X should be discussed with alternatives and the reasons for the choice"; Levin & Redell — "What were the alternatives considered at various points, and why were the choices made?"

S4 Implementation (0.5–1 page)

  1. Prototype description — Language, framework, LOC, integration with existing systems.
  2. Key engineering decisions — Non-obvious implementation choices worth documenting.

Source: Levin & Redell — "Does the paper describe something that has actually been implemented?"; Irene Zhang — "explain how you constructed a prototype to test your hypothesis."

S5 Evaluation (3–4 pages)

Paragraph structure:

  1. Experimental setup (~0.5 page) — Hardware, baselines, workloads, metrics. Enough detail to reproduce.
  2. End-to-end comparison (~1–1.5 pages) — X vs baselines for application Y on environment Z. Main performance results.
  3. Microbenchmarks / Ablation (~1–1.5 pages) — Isolate each design decision's contribution. Ablation experiments decompose the gains.
  4. Scalability (~0.5 page) — Show behavior as problem size, cluster size, or load increases.

Critical rule (Irene Zhang): State every experimental conclusion three times:

  • Section opening: hypothesis ("We expect X to outperform Y because...")
  • Section closing: conclusion ("Results show X outperforms Y by Z%")
  • Figure caption: evidence ("Figure N shows X achieves Z% better throughput than Y")

Two experiment types:

  • Type 1: X vs baselines for Y on Z (end-to-end comparison)
  • Type 2: Ablation — remove each design component to measure its individual impact

S6 Related Work (1 page)

  • Group by methodology or approach, not by individual papers.
  • For each group: what they do, what limitation remains, how your work differs.
  • Use a comparison table when comparing 4+ systems on specific dimensions.

Source: Levin & Redell — "Are comparisons with previous work clear and explicit?"; Irene Zhang — use comparison tables.

S7 Conclusion (0.5 page)

Three sentences (Irene Zhang formula):

  1. The hypothesis / problem addressed
  2. The solution approach
  3. The key result

Writing Patterns

Four reusable patterns for structuring systems papers. See references/writing-patterns.md for detailed examples.

Pattern 1: Gap Analysis (Lucid, ASPLOS'23)

Enumerate gaps G1–Gn in Introduction → map to answers A1–An in Design. Creates a clear contract with the reader.

Pattern 2: Observation-Driven (GFS, arXiv 2025)

Present production observations (O1–O3) in Motivation → derive design insights → build system around insights. Effective when you have real workload data.

Pattern 3: Contribution List (Blox, EuroSys'24; Sia, SOSP'23)

Numbered contributions in Introduction, each mapping to a section. Readers (and reviewers) can track claims through the paper.

Pattern 4: Thesis Formula (Irene Zhang)

Structure the entire paper around: "X is better for applications Y running in environment Z." Introduction states it, Design explains how, Evaluation proves it.


Conference Differences

Warning: Venue rules change yearly. Always verify against the current year's CFP before submission.

VenueFormatSubmission LimitCamera-ReadyReferences
OSDIUSENIX12 pages14 pagesUnlimited
NSDIUSENIX12 pages14 pagesUnlimited
SOSPACM SIGOPS12 pages (tech content)—Unlimited
ASPLOSACM SIGPLAN11 pages13 pagesUnlimited
EuroSysACM12 pages—Unlimited

Based on 2025/2026 CFPs. Verify current limits before submission.


Writing Philosophy

Manage Reader State (Gernot Heiser)

Treat the reader's cognitive load like an OS managing process state. Never introduce a concept without context. Never reference something defined later without a forward pointer.

Six-Dimensional Quality (Levin & Redell)

Self-check against: Original Ideas, Reality (is it built?), Lessons (what did you learn?), Choices (alternatives discussed?), Context (related work fair?), Presentation (clear writing?).

Page-One Figure (hzwer)

Include a figure on the first page that captures the core idea. Reviewers form first impressions from the title, abstract, and page-one figure.


Academic Integrity Requirements

Citation Discipline

  • Never generate citations from memory. Use ml-paper-writing's citation verification workflow (Semantic Scholar / DBLP / CrossRef APIs).
  • Mark unverified references as [CITATION NEEDED].

Prohibition of Fabrication

  • Do NOT fabricate production observations, traces, deployment experiences, or experimental results.
  • Do NOT generate fake venue rules, paper metadata, or best-paper claims.
  • Do NOT copy paragraph-level text from reference papers. This blueprint provides structural guidance, not copy-paste templates.

LLM Disclosure

  • Some venues require disclosure of substantial LLM use in writing or ideation. Check each venue's AI policy in the current CFP.

Attribution

  • When structures are inspired by specific papers (e.g., Lucid's gap-analysis pattern), cite the inspiration.
  • Cross-repository references (e.g., ARIS paper-slides structure) are attributed, not copied.

Temporal Validity

  • Venue rules (page limits, format, AI policies) change annually. All venue information in this skill is based on 2025/2026 CFPs. Always verify against the current year's CFP.

Workflow: Structuring a New Systems Paper

Step 1: Read this SKILL.md for page allocation overview
Step 2: Read references/section-blueprints.md for per-section paragraph templates
Step 3: Choose a writing pattern from references/writing-patterns.md
Step 4: Draft section by section following the blueprint
Step 5: Run the checklist from references/checklist.md before submission
Step 6: Use ml-paper-writing for citation verification and LaTeX formatting

Quick Checklist

  • Thesis statement follows "X is better for Y in Z" formula
  • Introduction has numbered contributions (3–5)
  • Each contribution maps to a paper section
  • Design discusses alternatives for every major choice
  • Every eval conclusion stated 3 times (hypothesis, result, caption)
  • Related work grouped by methodology, not individual papers
  • Page budget within venue limits
  • All citations verified programmatically (no hallucinated references)

Common Issues and Solutions

IssueSolution
Paper feels like a "feature list"Restructure around thesis formula: X better for Y in Z
Evaluation lacks depthAdd ablation experiments isolating each design decision
Reviewers say "incremental"Strengthen gap analysis: make G1–Gn crisper with evidence
Design section too longMove implementation details to S4, keep S3 at design level
Motivation feels weakAdd production observations with concrete numbers
Related work reads like a bibliographyGroup by approach, add explicit differentiation

References

Writing Guidance

Venue-Specific

  • references/checklist.md — 7-stage pre-submission checklist covering structure, writing quality, evaluation rigor, design quality, academic integrity, venue-specific requirements (OSDI/NSDI/ASPLOS/SOSP/EuroSys), and final pass
  • references/systems-conferences.md — Conference overview, deadlines, track descriptions, formatting requirements, submission rules, and format conversion guides
  • references/reviewer-guidelines.md — How systems conference reviewers evaluate papers, with venue-specific criteria and common concerns

LaTeX Templates

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Generates publication-quality figures for ML papers from research context. Given a paper section or description, extracts system components and relationships to generate architecture diagrams via Gemini. Given experiment results or data, auto-selects chart type and generates data-driven figures via matplotlib/seaborn. Use when creating any figure for a conference paper.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs1.4万2026年10月11日 更新

Compiles any research input — PDF papers, GitHub repositories, experiment logs, code directories, or raw notes — into a complete Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA) with cognitive layer (claims, concepts, heuristics), physical layer (configs, code stubs), exploration graph, and grounded evidence. Use when ingesting a paper or codebase into a structured, machine-executable knowledge package, building an ARA from scratch, or converting research outputs into a falsifiable, agent-traversable form.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs1.4万2026年10月11日 更新

Records research provenance as a post-task epilogue, scanning conversation history at the end of a coding or research session to extract decisions, experiments, dead ends, claims, heuristics, and pivots, and writing them into the ara/ directory with user-vs-AI provenance tags. Use as a session epilogue — never during execution — to maintain a faithful, auditable trace of how a research project actually evolved.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs1.4万2026年10月11日 更新

Performs ARA Seal Level 2 semantic epistemic review on Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions (evidence relevance, falsifiability, scope calibration, argument coherence, exploration integrity, methodological rigor) and producing a constructive, severity-ranked report with a Strong Accept-to-Reject recommendation. Use after Level 1 structural validation passes, when an ARA needs an objective epistemic critique before publication or release.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs1.4万2026年10月11日 更新

PyTorch library for audio generation including text-to-music (MusicGen) and text-to-sound (AudioGen). Use when you need to generate music from text descriptions, create sound effects, or perform melody-conditioned music generation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs1.4万2026年10月11日 更新

Autonomous AI agent platform for building and deploying continuous agents. Use when creating visual workflow agents, deploying persistent autonomous agents, or building complex multi-step AI automation systems.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs1.4万2026年10月11日 更新

Orchestra-Research のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する