Use when deciding whether a systems project belongs at EuroSys — the ACM SIGOPS-Europe flagship spanning OS, distributed systems, storage, cloud, virtualization, security, and ML systems — or routes better to SOSP, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, ATC, FAST, or SoCC, and how the April slot and dual deadlines affect that call.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eurosys-topic-selection --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Eurosys Topic Selection?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-eurosys-topic-selection)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: eurosys-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a systems project belongs at EuroSys — the ACM SIGOPS-Europe flagship spanning OS, distributed systems, storage, cloud, virtualization, security, and ML systems — or routes better to SOSP, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, ATC, FAST, or SoCC, and how the April slot and dual deadlines affect that call.
---
# EuroSys Topic Selection
Use this before serious writing begins. EuroSys is the flagship conference of
the European Chapter of ACM SIGOPS (`eurosys.org`, rendered 2026-07-08),
running annually since 2006 and seeking papers on **all areas of computer
systems** — it is a broad-church systems venue, not a niche. The 2026 edition
(the 21st) met in Edinburgh in April; 2027 meets in Rabat. The right question
is rarely "is this systems?" but "is this *conference-grade* systems, and is
EuroSys the best-positioned jury and calendar slot for it?"
## The substance bar
A EuroSys-ready project typically has all four:
- **A built thing.** An implemented system or substantial modification, not a
simulation of one (measurement and experience papers are the exception, and
must be framed as such).
- **A transferable idea.** An abstraction, mechanism, or empirically
established principle that outlives this codebase.
- **Evidence under realistic conditions.** Workloads and scale that resemble
the deployment story being told.
- **An articulable insight.** One sentence a reviewer can carry into the PC
meeting. Strong engineering without a nameable idea routes to ATC-style
venues or an experience track.
## Routing from the EuroSys seat
| Center of gravity | Stay or route | Why |
|---|---|---|
| OS/kernel, runtimes, virtualization, distributed infra | EuroSys core | The venue's home ground since 2006 |
| ML systems (serving, training infra) | EuroSys core, growing | Recent best papers are LLM-serving systems (e.g., EuroSys '25) |
| Once-a-generation OS-principles result | Consider SOSP/OSDI too | Same-family flagships; route by cycle timing and audience |
| Network protocols, measurement of networks | NSDI / SIGCOMM | EuroSys reads it as out-of-center networking |
| Hardware/software interface, arch mechanisms | ASPLOS | Architecture jury evaluates architecture ideas |
| Storage-stack internals | FAST first | Deepest storage jury; EuroSys viable for broader claims |
| Cloud-native ops, serverless economics | SoCC / Middleware also viable | Match the paper's altitude to the jury |
| Pragmatic engineering, tool papers | USENIX ATC | Idea-density bar differs there |
Two calendar facts sharpen the call: EuroSys's April conference and dual gates
(May and September submissions for 2027) interleave with the SOSP/OSDI and
NSDI cycles, so a systems result can almost always find a flagship gate within
a few months — pick by *fit and readiness*, never by whichever deadline is
nearest. And a EuroSys rejection blocks the same round for a year, which makes
premature submission genuinely expensive.
## Fit self-interrogation
```text
1. Insight test: state the idea in one sentence without naming your system.
2. Jury test: which three published papers would this one sit between?
If ≥2 are EuroSys/SOSP/OSDI papers, EuroSys is plausible.
3. Evidence test: does the current evaluation reach the four-layer stack
(end-to-end / decomposition / cost / boundary)? If not, is it reachable
by the target gate?
4. Regime test: is the claim's deployment story credible to reviewers who
run real infrastructure?
5. Calendar test: which gate (spring/fall) matches the project's maturity,
accounting for the one-year ban if it fails?
```
## Contribution shapes EuroSys publishes
The exemplars library (`resources/exemplars/library.md`) documents these
shapes across two decades of the venue's own award line:
| Shape | Award-line instance | What it must bring |
|---|---|---|
| General abstraction + engine | Dryad (2007) | Proof the abstraction subsumes existing practice |
| Tool with a thesis | Coccinelle line (2008) | Validation on the real ecosystem it targets |
| Small mechanism, big evidence | Delay Scheduling (2010) | Production-shaped workloads carrying a simple idea |
| Design-space taxonomy | Omega (2013) | Vocabulary plus trace-driven comparison |
| Production retrospective | Borg (2015) | Transferable lessons including failures |
| ML-infrastructure mechanism | CacheBlend (2025) | A systems idea legible without ML expertise |
If the project matches none of these shapes, that is not disqualifying —
but it should prompt a harder look at what the contribution *type* is
before a EuroSys jury is chosen for it.
## Signals you are forcing it
- The contribution sentence contains "we combine" and three technique names
but no invariant or tradeoff.
- The evaluation exists only at benchmark scale while the pitch is production
scale.
- The nearest related work is entirely from another community's venues — the
jury you are choosing has no vocabulary for the delta.
- The plan is "submit to fall EuroSys because SOSP just closed" — deadline
proximity masquerading as venue fit.
## When EuroSys is the *strategically* right flagship
Beyond raw fit, three situations tilt toward EuroSys among the systems
flagships:
- The work speaks to infrastructure and communities strongly represented
on European PCs (e.g., European cloud/telecom operators, EU data-locality
constraints) and benefits from that jury's context.
- The project's maturity curve matches a EuroSys gate now, and waiting for
another flagship's next cycle risks being scooped by a fast-moving line
of work.
- The team wants the artifact culture: sysartifacts badges plus a named
artifact award make EuroSys a strong home for systems whose artifact *is*
part of the contribution.
## Output format
```text
[Verdict] EuroSys-ready / EuroSys-plausible after gaps / route elsewhere
[Insight sentence] <the transferable idea, system name omitted>
[Neighbor triangulation] <three papers this would sit between>
[Best-fit gate] spring / fall 2027+ with readiness rationale
[If routing away] <venue + the specific mismatch driving it>
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!