ml-failure-audit
Skill27 starsChanged 8 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
General workflow for auditing ML CI failures, experiment regressions, training run failures, golden metric failures, and telemetry-backed ML work-product claims from local repositories, logs, metrics, configs, and artifacts. Use when Codex needs to decide whether an ML failure is a model/convergence issue, correctness bug, data/config issue, infrastructure/runtime issue, evaluation/gating policy issue, or unsupported claim, and produce structured evidence-backed outputs.
In this repository40 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- webapp-testingSkill
- env-hubSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- mintlify-docs-updaterSkill
- reviewSkill
- shipSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- specSkill
- internal-commsSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- algorithmic-artSkill
- canvas-designSkill
- instagram-reel-editorSkill
- remotionSkill
- slack-gif-creatorSkill
- ab-test-setupSkill
- copywritingSkill
- humanizerSkill
- instagram-postingSkill
- marketing-ideasSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- claude-for-legalSkill
- contract-review-risk-scoringSkill
- doc-coauthoringSkill
- docxSkill
- legal-work-pluginSkill
- pdfSkill
- pptxSkill
- xlsxSkill
- pm-skillsSkill
- resume-tailoringSkill
- last30daysSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- excalidrawSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- open-designSkill
- theme-factorySkill
- web-artifacts-builderSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Treat raw logs, raw telemetry, configs, and source code as higher-trust than reports, PR text, summaries, or generated JSONs.
- Distinctive: line 20
Do not label a failure as model/convergence regression when only a performance, timeout, logging, or tolerance gate failed and …
- Distinctive: line 36
Follow the task's requested schema exactly.
- Distinctive: line 37
If no schema is given, write a concise report with: evidence, classification, calculations, recommendation, and validation checks.
- Distinctive: line 41
Do not run expensive GPU training unless the user explicitly requests it.
- Distinctive: line 42
Do not clone remote repos when a local checkout is supplied.
- Distinctive: line 43
Do not trust prose summaries until verified against raw artifacts.
- Distinctive: line 44
Do not infer OOM, convergence, stability, or success from missing logs alone.
- Distinctive: line 45
If the task asks for a file output, create the file.
- Very specific: line 49
Use scripts/collect_failure_evidence.py for a quick first pass over a repo and logs:
- Very specific: line 62
Read references/workflow.md for the detailed audit checklist and failure taxonomy.
- Very specific: line 63
Read references/output_guidance.md when the user asks for structured JSON or a file deliverable.
- Distinctive: line 67
Use a short realistic task prompt like:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
ML Failure Audit
Purpose
Audit ML failures from supplied artifacts without assuming the headline explanation is true. Use this skill when the user provides a repo, logs, W&B/MLflow/TensorBoard exports, CI artifacts, config files, or reports and asks for a diagnosis, go/no-go decision, or structured output.
Core Workflow
- Locate evidence
- Find the repo root, log files, metric exports, configs, test definitions, golden values, and any requested output schema.
- Treat raw logs, raw telemetry, configs, and source code as higher-trust than reports, PR text, summaries, or generated JSONs.
- Classify the failure
- Separate model/convergence signals from correctness, data, config, runtime, infra, and metric-policy signals.
- Do not label a failure as model/convergence regression when only a performance, timeout, logging, or tolerance gate failed and correctness/loss checks passed.
- Recompute key facts
- Extract the failing metric/test, passed checks, final run state, key training counters, and relevant metric values.
- Recompute numeric claims directly from raw artifacts when possible.
- Record formulas for derived values such as throughput, relative error, finish rate, loss deltas, or token counts.
- Trace code paths
- Identify how the repo selects metrics/tests and how comparisons are made.
- Cite exact source files and, when useful, function names or line snippets.
- Make a decision
- State whether this is a true ML regression, system correctness bug, infra/runtime issue, data/config issue, metric-policy issue, or unsupported claim.
- Recommend the minimal policy or engineering action that protects correctness without over-blocking valid runs.
- Write outputs
- Follow the task's requested schema exactly.
- If no schema is given, write a concise report with: evidence, classification, calculations, recommendation, and validation checks.
Guardrails
- Do not run expensive GPU training unless the user explicitly requests it.
- Do not clone remote repos when a local checkout is supplied.
- Do not trust prose summaries until verified against raw artifacts.
- Do not infer OOM, convergence, stability, or success from missing logs alone.
- If the task asks for a file output, create the file; do not only answer in chat.
Helper Script
Use scripts/collect_failure_evidence.py for a quick first pass over a repo and logs:
python3 <skill_dir>/scripts/collect_failure_evidence.py \
--repo <repo-root> \
--logs <log1> <log2> \
--out <output.json>The script is intentionally generic. It extracts failure lines, pass lines, metric-looking lines, config/source candidates, and nearby context windows. Use it to accelerate evidence gathering, not as the final diagnosis.
References
- Read
references/workflow.mdfor the detailed audit checklist and failure taxonomy. - Read
references/output_guidance.mdwhen the user asks for structured JSON or a file deliverable.
Short Prompt Pattern
Use a short realistic task prompt like:
Use $ml-failure-audit to audit this ML CI failure from the provided repo and logs. Decide whether it is a real training regression or a gate/policy issue, and produce the requested output files.Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

