Use when splitting NSDI material across the 12-page body, the appendix pages the CFP allows beyond references, HotCRP auxiliary-material uploads for critical online content, and the one-shot-revision packet — deciding what reviewers must see in-body versus what merely supports it.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill nsdi-supplementary --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Nsdi Supplementary?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-nsdi-supplementary)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: nsdi-supplementary
description: Use when splitting NSDI material across the 12-page body, the appendix pages the CFP allows beyond references, HotCRP auxiliary-material uploads for critical online content, and the one-shot-revision packet — deciding what reviewers must see in-body versus what merely supports it.
---
# NSDI Supplementary Material
NSDI gives authors four containers with different review status. Misfiling content —
a load-bearing baseline in an appendix, revision evidence missing from the auxiliary
packet — costs more than any phrasing error. Rules below are the NSDI '27 CFP as
rendered on 2026-07-08.
## The four containers
| Container | '27 rule | Review status |
|---|---|---|
| Body | 12 pages incl. footnotes, figures, tables | The paper; judged in full |
| References | extra pages, no stated cap | Checked, uncounted |
| Appendices | extra pages after references permitted | Available context; assume optional reading (obligation 待核实) |
| Auxiliary material (HotCRP form) | for online content critical to the paper; alternative is contacting the co-chairs | Consulted at reviewer discretion; mandatory vehicle for revision packets |
Two contrasts worth internalizing. Against sibling venues that ban submission-time
appendices outright, NSDI *permits* them — the trap here is overuse, not existence.
And the auxiliary-material slot is not a junk drawer: the CFP frames it for content
**critical** to the paper that lives online, plus the structured revision documents
below.
## The placement rule
Ask of every artifact of content: *would a reviewer who skipped this be unable to
judge a claim?*
- **Yes → body.** Key workload description, baseline identity and tuning, the
mechanism a headline number depends on, the failure regimes. If it does not fit,
the paper is over-claiming for its budget — cut claims, not their evidence
(`nsdi-writing-style`).
- **Supports but does not carry → appendix.** Full parameter tables, additional
workload results consistent with in-body trends, protocol message formats,
extended proofs of secondary properties.
- **Lives online and matters → auxiliary material,** anonymized. A demo, a dataset
sample, an interactive visualization. Never a raw GitHub link in the text — repo
URLs identify authors (`nsdi-submission`).
Self-containment is a hard constraint in both directions: the 12 pages must stand
alone if every appendix page is ignored, and no appendix may quietly introduce a new
claim the body never made.
## Appendix design, when used
- Order appendices by likely reviewer interest; a skeptical reviewer goes to the
appendix to check one specific thing, not to read linearly.
- Give each appendix a one-line pointer from the body ("full per-workload results:
App. B") so their existence is discoverable inside the reviewed pages.
- Regenerate appendix tables from the same run ledger as body figures
(`nsdi-reproducibility`); internal contradictions between body and appendix are a
reviewer's fastest route to distrust.
- Anonymize appendices to the same standard as the body — leaks hide in config
listings, hostnames, and dataset paths.
## The one-shot revision packet
NSDI's most distinctive supplementary requirement. A resubmitted one-shot revision
**must** include auxiliary material containing:
1. a version of the paper **highlighting all changes made**, and
2. a **high-level explanation of the major changes**.
Build both as living documents during the revision, not as a deadline-night diff:
```bash
# Maintain the highlighted version continuously with latexdiff
latexdiff submitted/main.tex revised/main.tex > diff/main-diff.tex
pdflatex -output-directory diff diff/main-diff.tex
# Change memo skeleton: one block per required issue
# R2.3 (baseline tuning): re-ran §6.2 with vendor-recommended config;
# deltas now 2.1-2.9x (was 2.1-3.4x); text + Fig 7 updated. [diff pp. 8-9]
```
The same reviewers re-read the packet against their issue list; a memo that maps
issue → change → diff location does their verification for them. A revision whose
packet obscures what changed — or that ignores a required issue — is rejected with no
further revision option (`nsdi-author-response`).
## Triage drill for an overfull draft
When the draft runs to 13.5 pages, resist moving the overflow wholesale to an
appendix — demote by evidence role:
1. List every figure/table with the claim it supports; anything supporting no
in-body claim leaves the paper entirely.
2. Secondary workloads whose trend matches the primary: one summarizing sentence in
the body + full table in the appendix.
3. Mechanism details needed to *reimplement* but not to *judge* (message formats,
tuning constants): appendix.
4. Anything a skeptical reviewer needs to *believe* a number: stays in-body, and a
claim gets cut instead if space still lacks.
## Pre-upload sweep
- [ ] Body stands alone with all appendices deleted.
- [ ] No load-bearing evidence outside the 12 pages.
- [ ] Every appendix pointed to from the body; no orphan claims.
- [ ] Auxiliary uploads anonymized (metadata, paths, owners) and actually critical.
- [ ] Revision packets: highlighted PDF + change memo present, issue-complete.
- [ ] Combined upload sizes within whatever HotCRP enforces this cycle (check the
form; caps 待核实).
## Cross-container consistency
The containers are read at different times by different people — reviewers now,
revision reviewers months later, artifact evaluators after acceptance — so
consistency is a supply-chain property: numbers quoted in the body match the
appendix tables they summarize; the auxiliary demo shows the same system version
the paper measures; and the revision packet's diff derives from the exact PDF the
reviewers previously read, not an intermediate draft.
## Output format
```text
[Placement audit] item -> body / references / appendix / auxiliary (+ moves needed)
[Self-containment] body survives appendix deletion? orphan claims?
[Appendix hygiene] pointers present / regenerated from ledger / anonymized
[Revision packet] highlighted PDF ok? memo maps all required issues?
[Blocking issues] <ordered before upload>
```
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!