asplos-supplementary
GitHub指导ASPLOS投稿中附录内容的取舍。核心原则是正文需自包含，附录非额外页数而是不同媒介。用于存放配置、扩展结果等辅助材料，并支持匿名引用自身未发表工作，确保双盲评审合规。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill asplos-supplementary -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "asplos-supplementary",
"description": "Use when deciding what goes into an ASPLOS submission's appendices versus the 11 self-contained pages — applying the rule that reviewers are neither required nor encouraged to read supplemental material, using anonymized supplements for unciteable own work, and staging content for the revision and artifact phases."
}
ASPLOS Supplementary Material
ASPLOS 2027 lets appendices and supplemental material ride in the submission file with no page limit — under two conditions that define this entire skill: the 11-page body must be self-contained, and reviewers are neither required nor encouraged to read anything past it (CFP, checked 2026-07-08). Supplementary material is therefore not extra space; it is a different medium with a different reader contract.
The reader-contract test
For every block of content, ask: what happens if no reviewer ever reads this?
| If unread, the paper... | Verdict | Destination |
|---|---|---|
| ...loses a claim's only support | Body — the claim is otherwise unsupported | Compress into the 11 pages or cut the claim |
| ...still stands; the block deepens confidence | Legitimate appendix | Appendix, with a forward pointer from the body |
| ...still stands; the block enables re-implementation | Appendix or artifact | Appendix now; artifact package later |
| ...still stands; nobody would miss it | Cut | Nowhere |
The self-containment rule has teeth: the CFP frames appendices explicitly as not a way to circumvent the page limit. A proof sketch, key config table, or summary sensitivity plot that a claim depends on belongs inside the 11 pages, however tight that makes them.
What ASPLOS appendices are actually good for
- Full configuration dumps — simulator configs, kernel settings, tuning values whose summary appears in the evaluation section.
- Extended result grids — every workload × platform cell, where the body shows the representative subset and states the selection rule.
- Interface specifications — the full ISA-extension encoding or API surface the body describes functionally.
- Proof details for any formal claims, with theorem statements kept in-body.
- Reproduction detail that previews the Artifact Appendix (
asplos-artifact-evaluation) without depending on it.
The anonymized-supplement mechanism (ASPLOS-specific)
The 2027 double-blind rules include a mechanism siblings lack: when your own prior or concurrent work cannot be cited in the third person without breaking anonymity — a workshop paper being extended, a related manuscript under review elsewhere — it is uploaded and cited as anonymized supplemental material. Checklist for using it:
- Strip the supplement itself: author block, acknowledgments, PDF metadata, repository URLs, venue headers/footers.
- Cite it in the body as anonymous supplemental material, not with a placeholder like "removed for review" (the placeholder wording is disallowed).
- Include enough of the prior work that a reviewer can judge the delta — the point of the mechanism is to make "how much is new here?" answerable.
Pointer discipline
Every appendix section earns a one-line, promise-shaped pointer in the body:
Good: "Appendix B lists the full gem5 configuration; §6.1 states the
parameters that materially affect the results."
Bad: "Due to space constraints, details are in the appendix."
(names no content, admits the body is incomplete)
Bad: "See Appendix C for why this is safe."
(a safety argument is claim-support; it must live in the body)
Staging across the cycle
- Submission: appendices frozen with the body; they share the PDF and the deadline (September 9, 2026 for the live gate).
- Response window: you may point reviewers to specific appendix content that
answers their question — this is the one moment unread appendices get read, and
precise pointers (
asplos-author-response) are what make it happen. - Major Revision: appendix deltas count as part of the revision; log them in the change note like body changes.
- Camera-ready/AE: decide what migrates from appendix to the archived artifact, where it gains versioning and badges instead of page count.
Appendix architecture
Unlimited length is not license for a junk drawer. Conventions that keep the appendix navigable for the two audiences who might read it (a response-window reviewer following your pointer, and a future artifact evaluator):
- One appendix per purpose, lettered and titled by content ("Appendix B: Full gem5 configurations"), never "Additional results."
- Order by likelihood of being pointed to during the response window: extended results and configurations first, proofs and encodings later.
- Each appendix opens with a two-line scope note: what it contains and which body section it backs — orphan appendices with no body pointer get cut.
- Keep appendix figures compilable from the same scripts as body figures; a supplement that contradicts the body (stale plot, different config) is worse than no supplement, because it is the kind of inconsistency that surfaces during revision re-review.
What never belongs in any supplement
- Content that breaks anonymity (author-identifying configs, lab hostnames, grant boilerplate) — appendices are swept by the same double-blind rules as the body.
- The only statement of a limitation. Burying a known weakness in an appendix reads as concealment when a reviewer finds it — and one usually does.
- Results that contradict the body's claims without discussion; if the extended grid shows losing cases, the body's claim must already be scoped to survive them.
- Anything you are not prepared to defend in the response window — appendices are in the reviewed record even when unread by default.
Interaction with the 11-page budget
The appendix is the pressure-relief valve that makes the figure-inclusive
11-page limit workable — but only content that passes the reader-contract test
may flow through it. When asplos-writing-style's compression pass moves a
result grid out of the body, the body must retain the summary statistic and the
selection rule, so the claim remains supported by in-limit content alone. The
test after every move: re-read the body claim and ask whether a reviewer who
stops at page 11 still has grounds to believe it.
Output format
[Self-containment] claims supported only by appendix content: none / list
[Contract test] blocks re-classified body/appendix/artifact/cut: N moved
[Anonymized supplements] needed for: <own-work items> · stripped + cited correctly: Y/N
[Pointers] promise-shaped, content-naming: Y/N per appendix
[Staging] response-window pointer list drafted · artifact-migration list drafted
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:19
