dsh-aris-panel 0.1.0

package/skills/skills-codex/writing-systems-papers/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+---
+name: writing-systems-papers
+description: "Paragraph-level structural blueprint for 10-12 page systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides page allocation, paragraph templates, and writing patterns. Use when user says \"写系统论文\", \"systems paper structure\", \"OSDI paper\", \"SOSP paper\", or wants fine-grained structural guidance for a systems conference submission."
+argument-hint: "[venue-or-section]"
+allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch
+---
+
+# Writing Systems Papers: Paragraph-Level Blueprint
+
+Structural guidance for **$ARGUMENTS**
+
+## Relationship to Other ARIS Skills
+
+- **paper-write**: General paper generation workflow with citation verification. This skill complements it with systems-specific structural blueprints.
+- **paper-slides**: Conference presentation generation (Beamer+PPTX). Already covers talks — no overlap.
+- **paper-plan**: Research outline creation. Use paper-plan first, then this skill for paragraph-level structure.
+
+**Boundary**: paper-write handles the generation workflow (LaTeX output, DBLP verification, section-by-section drafting). This skill provides the **structural skeleton** — page budgets, paragraph roles, and writing patterns specific to systems venues.
+
+---
+
+## Page Allocation: 12-Page Systems Paper
+
+| Section | Pages | Key Content |
+|---------|-------|-------------|
+| Abstract | ~0.25 | 150–250 words, 5 sentences |
+| S1 Introduction | 1.5–2 | Problem → Gap → Insight → Contributions |
+| S2 Background & Motivation | 1–1.5 | Terms + Production observations |
+| S3 Design | 3–4 | Architecture + Modules + Alternatives |
+| S4 Implementation | 0.5–1 | Prototype, LOC, engineering |
+| S5 Evaluation | 3–4 | Setup + E2E + Ablation + Scalability |
+| S6 Related Work | 1 | By methodology, explicit comparison |
+| S7 Conclusion | 0.5 | 3-sentence summary |
+
+---
+
+## Section Blueprints
+
+### Abstract (5 sentences)
+
+```text
+S1: Problem context and importance
+S2: Gap in existing approaches
+S3: Thesis — "X is better for Y in environment Z" (Irene Zhang formula)
+S4: Approach summary + headline results
+S5: Impact or availability
+```
+
+Sources: Levin & Redell — "Can you state the new idea concisely?"; Irene Zhang — "abstract cannot use terms introduced in the paper."
+
+### S1 Introduction (1.5–2 pages)
+
+1. **Problem** (~0.5p) — Domain + concrete numbers + why it matters
+2. **Gap analysis** (~0.5p) — G1–Gn: specific shortcomings with evidence
+3. **Key insight** (1 para) — Thesis: "X is better for Y in Z"
+4. **Contributions** (~0.5p) — 3–5 numbered, testable claims with §N references
+
+Pattern: hzwer Move 1 (territory) → Move 2 (niche) → Move 3 (occupy).
+
+### S2 Background & Motivation (1–1.5 pages)
+
+1. **Technical background** (~0.5p) — Define-before-use (Gernot Heiser)
+2. **Observations** (~0.5–1p) — O1, O2, O3 from production data → design insights
+
+### S3 Design (3–4 pages)
+
+1. **Architecture overview** (~0.5p) — Diagram first (Yi Ding: "draw a picture first")
+2. **Module details** (~2–2.5p) — Per module: choice, alternatives, why
+3. **Trade-offs** (~0.5–1p) — Summary of design decisions
+
+Rule: "Every design choice must discuss alternatives" (Irene Zhang).
+
+### S4 Implementation (0.5–1 page)
+
+Language, LOC, framework, key engineering decisions. Keep concise.
+
+### S5 Evaluation (3–4 pages)
+
+1. **Setup** (~0.5p) — Hardware, baselines, workloads, metrics
+2. **End-to-end** (~1–1.5p) — X vs baselines for Y on Z
+3. **Ablation** (~1–1.5p) — Remove each component, measure impact
+4. **Scalability** (~0.5p) — Behavior at increasing scale
+
+**Three-statement rule** (Irene Zhang): Every conclusion stated as:
+- Hypothesis (section opening)
+- Conclusion (section closing)
+- Caption (figure caption)
+
+### S6 Related Work (1 page)
+
+Group by methodology. For each group: what they do, limitation, how we differ.
+
+### S7 Conclusion (0.5 page)
+
+Three sentences: problem, solution, result. No new information.
+
+---
+
+## Writing Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Gap Analysis
+Enumerate G1–Gn in intro → A1–An in design → verify in evaluation.
+*Example*: Lucid (ASPLOS'23) — 5 gaps mapped to 5 answers.
+
+### Pattern 2: Observation-Driven
+O1–O3 from production data → insights → design components.
+*Example*: GFS (arXiv 2025) — 3 observations drive 3 components.
+
+### Pattern 3: Contribution List
+Numbered contributions in intro, each with §N cross-reference.
+*Example*: Blox (EuroSys'24) — 7 contributions; Sia (SOSP'23) — 5 contributions.
+
+### Pattern 4: Thesis Formula
+"X is better for Y in Z" structures the entire paper.
+Combine with other patterns for maximum impact.
+
+---
+
+## Conference Differences
+
+> Always verify against current CFP — rules change yearly.
+
+| Venue | Format | Pages | Camera-Ready |
+|-------|--------|-------|-------------|
+| OSDI | USENIX | 12 | 14 |
+| NSDI | USENIX | 12 | 14 |
+| SOSP | ACM SIGOPS | 12 | — |
+| ASPLOS | ACM SIGPLAN | 11 | 13 |
+| EuroSys | ACM | 12 | — |
+
+Based on 2025/2026 CFPs.
+
+---
+
+## Workflow
+
+```text
+1. Determine venue and page limit
+2. Choose writing pattern (Gap/Observation/Contribution/Thesis)
+3. Allocate pages per section using the table above
+4. Draft Abstract following 5-sentence template
+5. Draft Introduction: Problem → Gap → Insight → Contributions
+6. Draft Motivation with production observations (if available)
+7. Draw architecture figure, then write Design
+8. Draft Implementation (concise)
+9. Draft Evaluation: setup → E2E → ablation → scalability
+10. Draft Related Work by methodology groups
+11. Draft Conclusion: 3 sentences
+12. Run pre-submission checklist
+13. Hand off to /paper-write for LaTeX generation and citation verification
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quick Self-Check
+
+- [ ] Thesis follows "X is better for Y in Z"
+- [ ] 3–5 numbered contributions with §N references
+- [ ] Design discusses alternatives for every major choice
+- [ ] Eval conclusions stated 3 times (hypothesis, result, caption)
+- [ ] Related work grouped by methodology
+- [ ] Page budget within venue limits
+- [ ] No fabricated observations, traces, or results
+- [ ] All citations verified (delegate to /paper-write)
+
+---
+
+## Academic Integrity
+
+- Never fabricate observations, traces, or experimental results
+- Never generate citations from memory — use /paper-write citation workflow
+- Disclose LLM use per venue policy
+- This blueprint provides structural guidance, not copy-paste text
+
+---
+
+## Authoritative Sources
+
+1. Levin & Redell — "How (and How Not) to Write a Good Systems Paper" (USENIX)
+2. Irene Zhang — "Hints on how to write an SOSP paper"
+3. Gernot Heiser — Style Guide + Paper Writing Talk
+4. Timothy Roscoe — "Writing reviews for systems conferences"
+5. Yi Ding — "How to write good systems papers?"
+6. hzwer & DingXiaoH — WritingAIPaper (GitHub)

package/skills/skills-codex-claude-review/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+# skills-codex-claude-review
+
+This package is a **thin override layer** for users who want:
+
+- **Codex** as the main executor
+- **Claude Code** as the reviewer
+- the local `claude-review` MCP bridge instead of a second Codex reviewer
+
+It is designed to sit on top of the upstream Codex-native package at `skills/skills-codex/`.
+
+Because the executor is Codex and the reviewer is Claude, overlay traces and
+audit artifacts record `review_independence: cross-family` and
+`acceptance_status: accepted`. The verifier still decides whether all required
+audits reached accepted assurance.
+
+## What this package contains
+
+- Only the review-heavy skill overrides that need a different reviewer backend
+- No duplicate templates or resource directories
+- No replacement for the base `skills/skills-codex/` installation
+
+Current overrides:
+
+- `research-review`
+- `novelty-check`
+- `research-refine`
+- `auto-review-loop`
+- `paper-plan`
+- `paper-figure`
+- `paper-write`
+- `auto-paper-improvement-loop`
+
+## Install
+
+1. Install the base Codex-native mirror first:
+
+```bash
+bash ~/aris_repo/tools/install_aris_codex.sh ~/your-project
+```
+
+2. Re-run with the Claude overlay enabled:
+
+```bash
+bash ~/aris_repo/tools/install_aris_codex.sh ~/your-project --reconcile --with-claude-review-overlay
+```
+
+3. Register the local reviewer bridge:
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review
+cp mcp-servers/claude-review/server.py ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/server.py
+codex mcp add claude-review -- python3 ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/server.py
+```
+
+If your Claude setup depends on a shell helper such as `claude-aws`, use the wrapper instead:
+
+```bash
+cp mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh
+chmod +x ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh
+codex mcp add claude-review -- ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh
+```
+
+## Why this exists
+
+The upstream `skills/skills-codex/` path already supports Codex-native execution with a second Codex reviewer via `spawn_agent`.
+
+This package adds a different split:
+
+- executor: Codex
+- reviewer: Claude Code CLI
+- transport: `claude-review` MCP
+
+For long paper and review prompts, the reviewer path uses:
+
+- `review_start`
+- `review_reply_start`
+- `review_status`
+
+This avoids the observed Codex-hosted timeout issue when Claude is invoked synchronously through a local bridge.

package/skills/skills-codex-claude-review/README_CN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# skills-codex-claude-review 说明
+
+这是一个**薄覆盖层**，适用于想采用以下组合的用户：
+
+- **Codex** 作为主执行者
+- **Claude Code** 作为审稿人
+- 用本地 `claude-review` MCP bridge 替代“第二个 Codex reviewer”
+
+它不是新造一套完整技能包，而是叠加在上游已有的 `skills/skills-codex/` 之上。
+
+由于执行者是 Codex、审稿人是 Claude，本 overlay 的 trace/audit 记录
+`review_independence: cross-family` 与 `acceptance_status: accepted`；最终仍由
+审计汇总器确认所有必需阶段是否都达到 accepted。
+
+## 这个包包含什么
+
+- 只包含需要切换 reviewer backend 的 review-heavy skill 覆盖文件
+- 不重复打包模板和资源目录
+- 不替代基础的 `skills/skills-codex/` 安装
+
+当前覆盖的技能：
+
+- `research-review`
+- `novelty-check`
+- `research-refine`
+- `auto-review-loop`
+- `paper-plan`
+- `paper-figure`
+- `paper-write`
+- `auto-paper-improvement-loop`
+
+## 安装方式
+
+1. 先安装上游原生 Codex 基座：
+
+```bash
+bash ~/aris_repo/tools/install_aris_codex.sh ~/your-project
+```
+
+2. 再用 Claude overlay 重跑一次：
+
+```bash
+bash ~/aris_repo/tools/install_aris_codex.sh ~/your-project --reconcile --with-claude-review-overlay
+```
+
+3. 注册本地 reviewer bridge：
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review
+cp mcp-servers/claude-review/server.py ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/server.py
+codex mcp add claude-review -- python3 ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/server.py
+```
+
+如果你的 Claude 依赖 `claude-aws` 之类的 shell helper，再改用 wrapper：
+
+```bash
+cp mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh
+chmod +x ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh
+codex mcp add claude-review -- ~/.codex/mcp-servers/claude-review/run_with_claude_aws.sh
+```
+
+## 为什么需要这个包
+
+上游 `skills/skills-codex/` 已经支持 Codex 原生执行，并通过 `spawn_agent` 使用第二个 Codex 做 reviewer。
+
+这个覆盖层新增的是另一种分工：
+
+- 执行者：Codex
+- 审稿人：Claude Code CLI
+- 传输层：`claude-review` MCP
+
+对于长论文和长 review prompt，这条 reviewer 路径会改用：
+
+- `review_start`
+- `review_reply_start`
+- `review_status`
+
+这样可以绕开 Codex 宿主下，本地 Claude bridge 同步等待时更容易出现的超时问题。