Systems Paper Writing Agent Skill

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

| Scenario | Use This Skill | Use 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:

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

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

12-Page Systems Paper Blueprint

Overview: Page Allocation

| Section | Pages | Purpose |

|---------|-------|---------|

| Abstract | ~0.25 | 150–250 words, 5-sentence structure |

| S1 Introduction | 1.5–2 | Problem → Gap → Insight → Contributions |

| S2 Background & Motivation | 1–1.5 | Terms + Production observations |

| S3 Design | 3–4 | Architecture + Module details + Alternatives |

| S4 Implementation | 0.5–1 | Prototype details, LOC, key engineering |

| S5 Evaluation | 3–4 | Setup + End-to-end + Microbenchmarks + Scalability |

| S6 Related Work | 1 | Grouped by methodology, explicit comparison |

| S7 Conclusion | 0.5 | 3-sentence summary |

| Total | ~12 | Submission: 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:

• Problem statement (~0.5 page) — Establish the domain and why it matters. Use concrete numbers (cluster sizes, workload statistics, latency requirements).
• Gap analysis (~0.5 page) — Enumerate specific gaps G1–Gn in existing systems. Each gap is one sentence with evidence.
• Key insight (1 paragraph) — The thesis statement: "X is better for applications Y running in environment Z." (Irene Zhang formula)
• 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:

• Technical background (~0.5 page) — Define terms and systems the reader needs. Follow Gernot Heiser's "define-before-use" principle.
• 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:

• System architecture overview (~0.5 page) — Architecture diagram first (Yi Ding: "draw a picture first"). One-paragraph walkthrough of major components and data flow.
• 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.
• 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)

• Prototype description — Language, framework, LOC, integration with existing systems.
• 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:

• Experimental setup (~0.5 page) — Hardware, baselines, workloads, metrics. Enough detail to reproduce.
• End-to-end comparison (~1–1.5 pages) — X vs baselines for application Y on environment Z. Main performance results.
• Microbenchmarks / Ablation (~1–1.5 pages) — Isolate each design decision's contribution. Ablation experiments decompose the gains.
• 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):

• The hypothesis / problem addressed
• The solution approach
• 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.

| Venue | Format | Submission Limit | Camera-Ready | References |

|-------|--------|-----------------|--------------|------------|

| OSDI | USENIX | 12 pages | 14 pages | Unlimited |

| NSDI | USENIX | 12 pages | 14 pages | Unlimited |

| SOSP | ACM SIGOPS | 12 pages (tech content) | — | Unlimited |

| ASPLOS | ACM SIGPLAN | 11 pages | 13 pages | Unlimited |

| EuroSys | ACM | 12 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

| Issue | Solution |

|-------|----------|

| Paper feels like a "feature list" | Restructure around thesis formula: X better for Y in Z |

| Evaluation lacks depth | Add ablation experiments isolating each design decision |

| Reviewers say "incremental" | Strengthen gap analysis: make G1–Gn crisper with evidence |

| Design section too long | Move implementation details to S4, keep S3 at design level |

| Motivation feels weak | Add production observations with concrete numbers |

| Related work reads like a bibliography | Group by approach, add explicit differentiation |

References

Writing Guidance

• references/section-blueprints.md — Detailed per-section paragraph templates with authoritative source quotes and best-paper structural examples
• references/writing-patterns.md — Four writing patterns with concrete paper examples

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

• templates/osdi2026/ — OSDI 2026 (USENIX format)
• templates/nsdi2027/ — NSDI 2027 (USENIX format)
• templates/asplos2027/ — ASPLOS 2027 (ACM SIGPLAN format)
• templates/sosp2026/ — SOSP 2026 (ACM SIGPLAN format)