atc-supplementary
GitHub指导ATC论文内容在摘要、正文、附录和工件间的策略性分配。核心原则是决定录用权重的关键内容必须置于评审员必读区域，确保各部分数据一致，避免将关键结果误放至非必读的附录或仅作为营销噱头的摘要中。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill atc-supplementary -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "atc-supplementary",
"description": "Use when deciding what belongs in the ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) two-page extended abstract, the 12-page paper body, the optional appendix, and the artifact — splitting content by review round and decision-criticality so nothing that decides acceptance lives where a reviewer is not required to read."
}
ATC Supplementary
ATC gives you four places to put content, each read by a different reviewer under a different rule: the two-page extended abstract (round one, two reviewers), the 12-page body (round two, 3-4 reviewers), the appendix (optional reading), and the artifact (opened during round two and evaluated post-acceptance). Placing content correctly is a strategic decision, not a formatting one, because reviewers are not required to read the appendix and a round-one reviewer may read only the abstract.
The placement rule
Anything that decides acceptance goes in a place the deciding reviewer is required to read.
- Round-one acceptance is decided from the extended abstract → the problem, contribution, headline result, and honest cost must be in the abstract.
- Round-two acceptance is decided from the body → every load-bearing design detail, baseline, and result must be in the 12 pages.
- The appendix holds support a curious reviewer may consult — extra graphs, proofs, parameter tables — never a result the verdict depends on.
- The artifact holds runnable evidence and full data — it strengthens trust and earns badges, but the paper must be judgeable without executing it.
What goes where
| Content | Home | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Problem, contribution, testbed, headline result, key cost | Extended abstract | The round-one decision surface; must stand alone |
| Design rationale, implementation, main experiments, fair baselines, tails/variance | Body (≤12 pp) | The round-two decision surface; nothing acceptance-critical may leave it |
| Extra sensitivity graphs, parameter sweeps, proofs, extended tables | Appendix | Optional depth; reviewers not required to read it |
| Full code, traces/datasets, configs, claim-to-experiment scripts | Artifact | Runnable evidence + badge material; paper still judged without running it |
The extended abstract is not a teaser
The most common ATC mistake is treating the extended abstract as a marketing blurb that depends on
the paper. It is a self-contained argument that must survive being read instead of the paper
(see atc-writing-style). Move the real problem, the real contribution, and a real result into it;
do not defer them to "as shown in the paper."
The appendix is not overflow
The second common mistake is using the appendix to dodge the 12-page limit by exiling results a reviewer must weigh. If a graph is needed to believe a claim, it belongs in the body; if it is merely reassuring, it belongs in the appendix. Ask: would a reviewer who skips this change their score? If yes, it is body content.
Consistency across the four places
- The number in the abstract, the body, the appendix, and the artifact output must match. Divergent numbers across places are a credibility hit and a frequent reviewer catch.
- The claim-to-experiment map (see
atc-experiments,atc-reproducibility) should let a reviewer trace each body claim to an artifact script and each artifact output back to a body figure. - Keep all four double-blind: an appendix or artifact often leaks identity (hostnames, owner strings, system names) even when the body is clean.
Decision procedure
[For each result] which round decides it? -> place it where that round's reviewer must read
[Abstract test] can a reviewer accept/reject from the 2 pages alone? if not, move content in
[Body test] is any acceptance-critical claim only in an appendix/artifact? if yes, move it in
[Appendix test] would skipping this change a score? if yes, it is body content, not appendix
[Consistency] do the numbers match across abstract/body/appendix/artifact? anonymity intact?
Output format
[Extended abstract] self-standing, decision-complete for round one? yes/no
[Body] all acceptance-critical content inside 12 pages? leaks to appendix/artifact?
[Appendix] optional-only? nothing score-changing exiled here?
[Artifact] runnable evidence + full data; paper judgeable without it? anonymized?
[Move queue] <content to relocate, with target location and reason>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:20
