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.
| 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.
This blueprint synthesizes guidance from established systems researchers:
Full citations and URLs: see references/section-blueprints.md.
| 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. |
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."
Paragraph structure:
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?"
Paragraph structure:
Source: Irene Zhang — "clearly motivate Y and Z. Why is application Y important?"; Gernot Heiser — "define-before-use."
Paragraph structure:
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?"
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."
Paragraph structure:
Critical rule (Irene Zhang): State every experimental conclusion three times:
Two experiment types:
Source: Levin & Redell — "Are comparisons with previous work clear and explicit?"; Irene Zhang — use comparison tables.
Three sentences (Irene Zhang formula):
Four reusable patterns for structuring systems papers. See references/writing-patterns.md for detailed examples.
Enumerate gaps G1–Gn in Introduction → map to answers A1–An in Design. Creates a clear contract with the reader.
Present production observations (O1–O3) in Motivation → derive design insights → build system around insights. Effective when you have real workload data.
Numbered contributions in Introduction, each mapping to a section. Readers (and reviewers) can track claims through the paper.
Structure the entire paper around: "X is better for applications Y running in environment Z." Introduction states it, Design explains how, Evaluation proves it.
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.
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.
Self-check against: Original Ideas, Reality (is it built?), Lessons (what did you learn?), Choices (alternatives discussed?), Context (related work fair?), Presentation (clear writing?).
Include a figure on the first page that captures the core idea. Reviewers form first impressions from the title, abstract, and page-one figure.
[CITATION NEEDED].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
| 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 |