writing-systems-papers
$
npx mdskill add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/writing-systems-papersStructural guidance for **$ARGUMENTS**
SKILL.md
.github/skills/writing-systems-papersView on GitHub ↗
--- name: writing-systems-papers description: "Paragraph-level structural blueprint for 10-12 page systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides page allocation, paragraph templates, and writing patterns. Use when user says \"写系统论文\", \"systems paper structure\", \"OSDI paper\", \"SOSP paper\", or wants fine-grained structural guidance for a systems conference submission." argument-hint: [venue-or-section] allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch --- # Writing Systems Papers: Paragraph-Level Blueprint Structural guidance for **$ARGUMENTS** ## Relationship to Other ARIS Skills - **paper-write**: General paper generation workflow with citation verification. This skill complements it with systems-specific structural blueprints. - **paper-slides**: Conference presentation generation (Beamer+PPTX). Already covers talks — no overlap. - **paper-plan**: Research outline creation. Use paper-plan first, then this skill for paragraph-level structure. **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. --- ## Page Allocation: 12-Page Systems Paper | 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 | --- ## Section Blueprints ### Abstract (5 sentences) ```text 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." ### S1 Introduction (1.5–2 pages) 1. **Problem** (~0.5p) — Domain + concrete numbers + why it matters 2. **Gap analysis** (~0.5p) — G1–Gn: specific shortcomings with evidence 3. **Key insight** (1 para) — Thesis: "X is better for Y in Z" 4. **Contributions** (~0.5p) — 3–5 numbered, testable claims with §N references Pattern: hzwer Move 1 (territory) → Move 2 (niche) → Move 3 (occupy). ### S2 Background & Motivation (1–1.5 pages) 1. **Technical background** (~0.5p) — Define-before-use (Gernot Heiser) 2. **Observations** (~0.5–1p) — O1, O2, O3 from production data → design insights ### S3 Design (3–4 pages) 1. **Architecture overview** (~0.5p) — Diagram first (Yi Ding: "draw a picture first") 2. **Module details** (~2–2.5p) — Per module: choice, alternatives, why 3. **Trade-offs** (~0.5–1p) — Summary of design decisions Rule: "Every design choice must discuss alternatives" (Irene Zhang). ### S4 Implementation (0.5–1 page) Language, LOC, framework, key engineering decisions. Keep concise. ### S5 Evaluation (3–4 pages) 1. **Setup** (~0.5p) — Hardware, baselines, workloads, metrics 2. **End-to-end** (~1–1.5p) — X vs baselines for Y on Z 3. **Ablation** (~1–1.5p) — Remove each component, measure impact 4. **Scalability** (~0.5p) — Behavior at increasing scale **Three-statement rule** (Irene Zhang): Every conclusion stated as: - Hypothesis (section opening) - Conclusion (section closing) - Caption (figure caption) ### S6 Related Work (1 page) Group by methodology. For each group: what they do, limitation, how we differ. ### S7 Conclusion (0.5 page) Three sentences: problem, solution, result. No new information. --- ## Writing Patterns ### Pattern 1: Gap Analysis Enumerate G1–Gn in intro → A1–An in design → verify in evaluation. *Example*: Lucid (ASPLOS'23) — 5 gaps mapped to 5 answers. ### Pattern 2: Observation-Driven O1–O3 from production data → insights → design components. *Example*: GFS (arXiv 2025) — 3 observations drive 3 components. ### Pattern 3: Contribution List Numbered contributions in intro, each with §N cross-reference. *Example*: Blox (EuroSys'24) — 7 contributions; Sia (SOSP'23) — 5 contributions. ### Pattern 4: Thesis Formula "X is better for Y in Z" structures the entire paper. Combine with other patterns for maximum impact. --- ## Conference Differences > 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. --- ## Workflow ```text 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 ``` --- ## Quick Self-Check - [ ] Thesis follows "X is better for Y in Z" - [ ] 3–5 numbered contributions with §N references - [ ] Design discusses alternatives for every major choice - [ ] Eval conclusions stated 3 times (hypothesis, result, caption) - [ ] Related work grouped by methodology - [ ] Page budget within venue limits - [ ] No fabricated observations, traces, or results - [ ] All citations verified (delegate to /paper-write) --- ## Academic Integrity - Never fabricate observations, traces, or experimental results - Never generate citations from memory — use /paper-write citation workflow - Disclose LLM use per venue policy - This blueprint provides structural guidance, not copy-paste text --- ## Authoritative Sources 1. Levin & Redell — "How (and How Not) to Write a Good Systems Paper" (USENIX) 2. Irene Zhang — "Hints on how to write an SOSP paper" 3. Gernot Heiser — Style Guide + Paper Writing Talk 4. Timothy Roscoe — "Writing reviews for systems conferences" 5. Yi Ding — "How to write good systems papers?" 6. hzwer & DingXiaoH — WritingAIPaper (GitHub)
More from wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
- ablation-plannerUse when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission. Codex designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective, CC reviews feasibility and implements.
- alphaxivQuick single-paper lookup via AlphaXiv LLM-optimized summaries with tiered source fallback. Use when user says "explain this paper", "summarize paper", pastes an arXiv/AlphaXiv URL, or provides a bare arXiv ID for quick understanding - not for broad literature search.
- analyze-resultsAnalyze ML experiment results, compute statistics, generate comparison tables and insights. Use when user says "analyze results", "compare", or needs to interpret experimental data.
- auto-paper-improvement-loopAutonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-5.4 xhigh review → implement fixes → recompile, for 2 rounds. Use when user says \"改论文\", \"improve paper\", \"论文润色循环\", \"auto improve\", or wants to iteratively polish a generated paper.
- auto-review-loopAutonomous multi-round research review loop. Repeatedly reviews via external reviewer backend (Codex or manual), implements fixes, and re-reviews until positive assessment or max rounds reached. Use when user says "auto review loop", "review until it passes", or wants autonomous iterative improvement.
- auto-review-loop-llmAutonomous research review loop using any OpenAI-compatible LLM API. Configure via llm-chat MCP server or environment variables. Trigger with "auto review loop llm" or "llm review".
- auto-review-loop-minimaxAutonomous multi-round research review loop using MiniMax API. Use when you want to use MiniMax instead of Codex MCP for external review. Trigger with "auto review loop minimax" or "minimax review".
- citation-auditZero-context verification that every bibliographic entry in the paper is real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited paper actually supports. Uses a fresh cross-model reviewer with web/DBLP/arXiv lookup to catch hallucinated authors, wrong years, fabricated venues, version mismatches, and wrong-context citations (cite present but the cited paper does not establish the claim). Use when user says \"审查引用\", \"check citations\", \"citation audit\", \"verify references\", \"引用核对\", or before submission to ensure bibliography integrity.
- claims-draftingDraft patent claims for an invention. Use when user says \"撰写权利要求\", \"draft claims\", \"写权利要求书\", \"claim drafting\", or wants to create patent claims. The core skill of the patent pipeline.
- comm-lit-review-claude-singleCommunications-domain literature review with Claude-style knowledge-base-first retrieval. Use when the task is about communications, wireless, networking, satellite/NTN, Wi-Fi, cellular, transport protocols, congestion control, routing, scheduling, MAC/PHY, rate adaptation, channel estimation, beamforming, or communication-system research and the user wants papers, related work, a survey, or a landscape summary. Search Zotero, Obsidian, and local paper folders first when available, then search IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, and broader web in that order.