# Acm Sigmetrics > Use when targeting ACM SIGMETRICS (SIGMETRICS) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for performance measurement. - Skill: `thedixitjain/acm-sigmetrics` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/acm-sigmetrics` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/acm-sigmetrics/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/acm-sigmetrics --- # ACM SIGMETRICS (SIGMETRICS) ## Conference positioning ACM SIGMETRICS (SIGMETRICS) is a top computer-science conference venue for performance evaluation, queueing, measurement, modeling, networks, systems, and stochastic analysis. It rewards a performance paper where measurement design or analytical model is the contribution. Treat this skill as a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal. Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in `../../resources/conference-roster.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`. ## When to trigger - The author names SIGMETRICS / ACM SIGMETRICS as the target venue. - A manuscript in performance evaluation needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted. - The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative. - The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue. ## Scope & topic fit - Core fit: performance evaluation, queueing, measurement, modeling, networks, systems, and stochastic analysis. - Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis. - The paper should explain why the result matters to SIGMETRICS's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context. - Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness. - If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence. ## Venue-specific calibration - Reviewer lens: Treat SIGMETRICS as performance modeling and measurement: queueing, stochastic analysis, workload characterization, and principled evaluation are the center. A networking or systems paper belongs here only when performance methodology is the contribution. - Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar. - Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: performance evaluation, queueing, measurement, modeling, networks, systems, and stochastic analysis. - Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: performance, evaluation, queueing, measurement, modeling, networks, stochastic, analysis, venue-specific, contribution, sigmetrics. - Official anchor domain: www.sigmetrics.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit. ## Close-neighbor routing guardrail - Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in performance measurement and the author can say why SIGMETRICS reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline. - Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: `acm-sigplan-symposium-on- principles-and-practice-of-parallel-programming` (PPoPP), `acm-international-symposium-on- high-performance-parallel-and-distributed-computing` (HPDC), `acm-workshop-on-hot-topics-in- networks` (HotNets), `acm-conference-on-security-and-privacy-in-wireless-and-mobile- networks` (WiSec). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from www.sigmetrics.org. ## SIGMETRICS-specific routing detail - Prefer SIGMETRICS when the novelty is a performance-measurement method, stochastic/queueing model, workload characterization, or evaluation design that explains why systems behave as observed. - Route provocative early networking theses to HotNets, mature networking mechanisms to SIGCOMM/NSDI, and parallel/distributed runtime or scheduling papers to HPDC unless the measurement/modeling method is the contribution. - Do not treat "we measured speedups" as SIGMETRICS fit by itself; reviewers need a reusable performance lens, validated model, or measurement methodology. ## Method & evidence bar - Build the artifact or prototype far enough that the core design can be measured under realistic workloads. - Use appropriate baselines, sensitivity analyses, and workload characterization; systems reviewers look for hidden bottlenecks. - Separate engineering effort from research contribution: name the abstraction, mechanism, or tradeoff. - For SIGMETRICS, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a performance paper where measurement design or analytical model is the contribution. - Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim. ## Structure & house style - Start from a systems pain point and show why existing abstractions fail. - Use evaluation sections that answer research questions, not a tour of every benchmark run. - Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles. - The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim. - Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution. ## Official-cycle checklist - Open the live official venue page: https://www.sigmetrics.org/ - Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements. - Confirm the review workflow and portal: the current USENIX/ACM/IEEE author kit, artifact policy, and submission system. - Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at SIGMETRICS, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language. - [ ] The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support. - [ ] Related work includes the nearest current-cycle performance measurement papers and explains the technical delta. - [ ] The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements. - [ ] The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links. ## Common desk-reject triggers - Toy implementation or microbenchmark-only evidence for a systems claim. - No comparison to mature systems or no explanation of deployment constraints. - Performance gains with unclear workload representativeness. - Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy. - A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving SIGMETRICS reviewers too little technical or empirical substance. ## Re-routing decision If the paper misses SIGMETRICS's bar, compare against `acm-symposium-on-operating-systems-principles` / `usenix-symposium-on-operating-systems-design-and-implementation` / `usenix-symposium-on-networked-systems-design-and-implementation` / `acm-sigcomm`. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] ACM SIGMETRICS (SIGMETRICS) [Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other [Main evidence gap] [Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready [Top rejection risk] [Re-route suggestion] ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Computer-Science-Conference-Skills/skills/acm-sigmetrics/SKILL.md`