skills/skills-codex/writing-systems-papers/SKILL.md
Paragraph-level structural blueprint for 10-12 page systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides page allocation, paragraph templates, and writing patterns. Use when user says "写系统论文", "systems paper structure", "OSDI paper", "SOSP paper", or wants fine-grained structural guidance for a systems conference submission.
npx skillsauth add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep writing-systems-papersInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Structural guidance for $ARGUMENTS
Boundary: paper-write handles the generation workflow (LaTeX output, DBLP verification, section-by-section drafting). This skill provides the structural skeleton — page budgets, paragraph roles, and writing patterns specific to systems venues.
| Section | Pages | Key Content | |---------|-------|-------------| | Abstract | ~0.25 | 150–250 words, 5 sentences | | S1 Introduction | 1.5–2 | Problem → Gap → Insight → Contributions | | S2 Background & Motivation | 1–1.5 | Terms + Production observations | | S3 Design | 3–4 | Architecture + Modules + Alternatives | | S4 Implementation | 0.5–1 | Prototype, LOC, engineering | | S5 Evaluation | 3–4 | Setup + E2E + Ablation + Scalability | | S6 Related Work | 1 | By methodology, explicit comparison | | S7 Conclusion | 0.5 | 3-sentence summary |
S1: Problem context and importance
S2: Gap in existing approaches
S3: Thesis — "X is better for Y in environment Z" (Irene Zhang formula)
S4: Approach summary + headline results
S5: Impact or availability
Sources: Levin & Redell — "Can you state the new idea concisely?"; Irene Zhang — "abstract cannot use terms introduced in the paper."
Pattern: hzwer Move 1 (territory) → Move 2 (niche) → Move 3 (occupy).
Rule: "Every design choice must discuss alternatives" (Irene Zhang).
Language, LOC, framework, key engineering decisions. Keep concise.
Three-statement rule (Irene Zhang): Every conclusion stated as:
Group by methodology. For each group: what they do, limitation, how we differ.
Three sentences: problem, solution, result. No new information.
Enumerate G1–Gn in intro → A1–An in design → verify in evaluation. Example: Lucid (ASPLOS'23) — 5 gaps mapped to 5 answers.
O1–O3 from production data → insights → design components. Example: GFS (arXiv 2025) — 3 observations drive 3 components.
Numbered contributions in intro, each with §N cross-reference. Example: Blox (EuroSys'24) — 7 contributions; Sia (SOSP'23) — 5 contributions.
"X is better for Y in Z" structures the entire paper. Combine with other patterns for maximum impact.
Always verify against current CFP — rules change yearly.
| Venue | Format | Pages | Camera-Ready | |-------|--------|-------|-------------| | OSDI | USENIX | 12 | 14 | | NSDI | USENIX | 12 | 14 | | SOSP | ACM SIGOPS | 12 | — | | ASPLOS | ACM SIGPLAN | 11 | 13 | | EuroSys | ACM | 12 | — |
Based on 2025/2026 CFPs.
1. Determine venue and page limit
2. Choose writing pattern (Gap/Observation/Contribution/Thesis)
3. Allocate pages per section using the table above
4. Draft Abstract following 5-sentence template
5. Draft Introduction: Problem → Gap → Insight → Contributions
6. Draft Motivation with production observations (if available)
7. Draw architecture figure, then write Design
8. Draft Implementation (concise)
9. Draft Evaluation: setup → E2E → ablation → scalability
10. Draft Related Work by methodology groups
11. Draft Conclusion: 3 sentences
12. Run pre-submission checklist
13. Hand off to /paper-write for LaTeX generation and citation verification
development
Search GitHub Issues and Discussions for software errors, version compatibility problems, and exact error-string matches. Use for debugging and discovery only; results are not paper-citation evidence.
development
Search GitHub Issues and Discussions for software errors, version compatibility problems, and exact error-string matches. Use for debugging and discovery only; results are not paper-citation evidence.
testing
Run the Anti-Autoresearch integrity-forensics sweep (span-anchored evidence ledger → GPT auditors propose findings → deterministic rules-only adjudicator) against a paper via a SHA-pinned thin launcher — then convert the verdict into a typed policy gate (BLOCK/WARN/NO_NEW_BLOCKER) and an append-only obligations ledger. Use when user says "integrity forensics", "forensic audit this paper", "投稿前自查诚信", "审这篇论文的诚信", or says "anti-autoresearch" when the upstream repo's own skills are not installed. Also invoked by /paper-writing (submission self-forensics, default ON), /peer-review (forensic appendix), /resubmit-pipeline.
testing
Privileged applier that LANDS meta-optimize / corpus-audit patches the user approved — the ONLY skill permitted to mutate the skill corpus from a self-modification proposal, with cross-model jury and human approval at landing. Use when the user says "meta apply", "/meta-apply", "land the staged patches", "应用优化", after a /meta-optimize run.