SOSP Skills
A 12-skill depth pack for SOSP (ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles) submissions: venue fit, HotCRP submission audits, author response, review-process modeling, camera-ready with shepherding, sysartifacts artifact evaluation, reproducibility, supplementary material, writing style, related work, experiments, and cycle workflow. Grounded in the official SOSP 2026 CFP, author guidelines, Ho
Skills in this plugin
11- ▌ Sosp Submission · brycewang-stanfordUse when auditing a SOSP submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the abstract-registration and full-paper deadlines, the 12-page technical-content limit with references excluded, the 7x9-inch two-column format, double-blind rules with paper-ID substitution, conflict declaration under PC-chair audit, and desk-reject triage.
- ▌ Sosp Experiments · brycewang-stanfordUse when designing or auditing the evaluation of a SOSP paper — mapping every claim to an experiment, choosing baselines a systems PC will accept as fair, mixing microbenchmarks with end-to-end and failure runs, reporting tails and overheads honestly, and isolating the mechanism the design credits.
- ▌ Sosp Camera Ready · brycewang-stanfordUse when preparing a SOSP camera-ready after acceptance, working with an assigned shepherd toward the final deadline, expanding from the 12-page submission to the 13-page final limit (14 with shepherd approval), de-anonymizing safely, adding artifact badges, and meeting ACM proceedings requirements.
- ▌ Sosp Related Work · brycewang-stanfordUse when positioning a SOSP submission against the systems literature — the SOSP/OSDI lineage a PC expects you to know, structural comparison instead of citation listing, third-person self-citation under double-blind rules, and handling concurrent work across the now-annual systems deadline circuit.
- ▌ Sosp Supplementary · brycewang-stanfordUse when deciding what belongs in a SOSP supplementary document versus the 12-page paper, packaging proofs, extended analyses, and methodological detail as a separate anonymized upload, and keeping review-critical evidence out of material reviewers are not obligated to read.
- ▌ Sosp Writing Style · brycewang-stanfordUse when drafting or revising SOSP prose — leading with a design principle rather than a feature list, building the intro's problem-to-insight arc, budgeting 12 dense two-column pages across design and evaluation, writing figures that argue, and keeping claims inside what the measurements support.
- ▌ Sosp Review Process · brycewang-stanfordUse when reasoning about how a SOSP submission is evaluated — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, staged review rounds, PC-chair-audited conflicts, the pre-PC-meeting author response, the single-track PC meeting where every decision is argued live, notification, and shepherded acceptance outcomes.
- ▌ Sosp Author Response · brycewang-stanfordUse when drafting a SOSP author response during the pre-PC-meeting rebuttal window, keeping it within the venue's norms — correcting factual errors, answering direct reviewer questions, staying near the 500-word guidance, and never introducing new experiments, new data, or promises of future work.
- ▌ Sosp Reproducibility · brycewang-stanfordUse when hardening the reproducibility of a SOSP paper's results before submission — pinning the OS-level environment, recording hardware and topology, making every figure regenerable from logged runs, separating measurement noise from effect size, and preparing the ground for post-acceptance artifact evaluation.
- ▌ Sosp Topic Selection · brycewang-stanfordUse when deciding whether a systems project is SOSP-shaped — a built and measured artifact embodying an extractable principle in operating and distributed systems — or better routed to OSDI, EuroSys, USENIX ATC, NSDI, FAST, ASPLOS, VLDB, MLSys, or HotOS, and when to make that call in the project's life.
- ▌ Sosp Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanfordUse when preparing a SOSP artifact for the post-acceptance evaluation run by the sysartifacts community, registering within days of notification, packaging for the cooperative review process, and targeting the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, and Artifacts Evaluated Reusable.