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 Blueprints

Abstract (5 sentences)

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.

Based on 2025/2026 CFPs.

Workflow

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)