Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

systems-paper-writing(系统论文写作)

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

systems-paper-writing 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 40,912。

总安装 1,236周安装 51GitHub Stars 7,561下载 404核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:systems-paper-writing(系统论文写作)
来源仓库:https://github.com/orchestra-research/ai-research-skills
仓库路径:skills/systems-paper-writing
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/orchestra-research/ai-research-skills --skill systems-paper-writing
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/orchestra-research/ai-research-skills --skill systems-paper-writing

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown 和说明文的内容整理与改写。适合提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语或检查链接,提升内容可读性。使用时需保留项目已有事实和路径,避免将未确认信息写成确定结论。涉及对外文案时应控制语气,防止过度营销或夸大能力描述。

systems-paper-writing 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/systems-paper-writing

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/orchestra-research/ai-research-skills --skill…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

systems-paper-writing 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/orchestra-research/ai-research-skills --skill systems-pa…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

systems-paper-writing 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

systems-paper-writing 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

systems-paper-writing 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

systems-paper-writing 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,236 次,近一周安装 51 次,下载 404 次,GitHub 7,561 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

systems-paper-writing 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 来源仓库有 7,561 星,维护活跃度相对可查。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
systems-paper-writing

系统论文写作 · 本页

1,2367,561只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

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

平台分布

Codex

36.57%
按下载量换算148

Claude

28.88%
按下载量换算117

Cursor

18.54%
按下载量换算75

Gemini CLI

8.1%
按下载量换算33

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills