Use when drafting or revising an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) systems paper — writing a self-standing two-page extended abstract for the round-one gate, structuring the implementation-and-measurement narrative, reporting costs beside gains, and holding the two-column 12-page budget.
NewMaintained
Automatic
◆Writing & Editing pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 11 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 22 without it.
Without skill50%
With skill50%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The output includes '[Extended abstract]'
The output notes that the two-column format fills rapidly when figure-heavy
The output identifies the main body page usage as compliant with the 12-page limit
and 1 more in the full report
4 fixed14 passed either way3 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
0 pp
Tokens
+21%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-33%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v118 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 4
Prompt
Here is my two-page extended abstract for USENIX ATC. It covers our overall system vision and refers the reader to Section 3 of the main paper for details on our testbed setup and baseline comparisons. Please evaluate if this abstract is ready for round one review.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The output includes '[Extended abstract]'
Missed
Passed
The response indicates that the abstract fails the self-standing requirement due to external section references
Passed
Passed
case-04 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md84 linessingle file
ATC Writing Style
Write for two audiences in two rounds. In round one, two reviewers read only your two-page
extended abstract; in round two, 3-4 reviewers read the full paper. The abstract is review-only,
not published, and must stand alone. So ATC writing has a demand no single-round venue makes: the
paper's core argument must fit, self-contained, into two pages and expand faithfully into twelve.
The self-standing extended abstract (round-one surface)
A round-one reviewer who reads only the abstract should finish knowing:
The systems problem — a pain a builder or operator recognizes, in the first breath.
Why the current design is inadequate — the specific limitation your work removes.
The contribution — the system or technique, stated as what it does, not "novel."
The evidence — the real testbed and the headline result (with the metric that matters, e.g.,
tail latency, throughput at matched cost).
The honest cost — what the design trades away, named not hidden.
Test it: hand the two pages to a systems colleague without the paper and ask them to state the
problem, contribution, testbed, and result. If they cannot, the abstract will lose round one no
matter how strong the paper is. A trimmed introduction can work only if it already reads
self-contained.
The full-paper arc
ATC papers are implementation-and-measurement narratives:
Introduction: problem → inadequacy → contribution as systems claims → real-testbed evidence →
what changes in practice. Lead with the systems contribution, not a trend sentence.
Design: the mechanism and the reasons for each choice, tied to the deployment constraint.
Reviewers reward a design justified by the problem over one justified by novelty.
Implementation: enough that a reader believes it was built and could be rebuilt — scale (lines,
components), integration points, and what was hard.
Evaluation: questions first, then answers. End-to-end results and microbenchmarks that
isolate the mechanism; baselines that are fair; tails and variance, not just means.
Costs and limitations: report the trade beside the gain, ideally in the same figure/table. ATC
reviewers trust evaluations that volunteer their costs.
Use when auditing an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) submission for HotCRP readiness — the paired two-page extended abstract plus full paper, the two-column 12/6-page budget, the double-blind anonymity sweep, ACM Open Access publication, and desk-reject triage before the early-June AoE cutoff.