agentleFS
lllllllamalllllllama/RigorPilot-Skills/skills/explore-run/SKILL.md

explore-run

Skill495 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Rigor Improve / Rigor Explore run leaf skill for bounded exploratory evidence in deep learning research repositories. Use when the researcher explicitly authorizes exploratory runs such as small-subset validation, short-cycle guess-and-check, batch sweeps, idle-GPU search, or quick transfer-learning trials, with fair-comparison caveats and no-overclaim summaries in `explore_outputs/`. Do not use for end-to-end exploration orchestration on top of `current_research`, trusted baseline execution, conservative training verification, default routing, verified SOTA claims, or implicit experimentation.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

16 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 9

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use this as the Rigor Improve / Rigor Explore run leaf skill.

    line 8
  2. Very specific:

    Use the shared operating principles in ../ai-research-reproduction/references/agent-operating-principles.md.

    line 11
  3. Distinctive:

    When the researcher explicitly authorizes exploratory runs.

    line 17
  4. Distinctive:

    When the task is a small-subset validation, short-cycle training probe, batch sweep, idle-GPU search, or quick transfer-learning trial.

    line 18
  5. Distinctive:

    When the output should rank candidate runs rather than certify trusted success.

    line 19
  6. Distinctive:

    When the user wants trusted training execution or conservative verification.

    line 23
  7. Distinctive:

    When there is no explicit exploratory authorization.

    line 24
  8. Distinctive:

    When the task is repository setup, intake, or debugging.

    line 25
  9. Very specific:

    Use ai-research-explore instead when the task spans both current_research coordination and exploratory code changes.

    line 30
  10. Very specific:

    Default weights should stay conservative unless the researcher explicitly provides selection_weights.

    line 40
  11. Distinctive:

    If runs are executed later, downstream ranking should switch to real execution evidence, not stay purely heuristic.

    line 42
  12. Very specific:

    Use variant_axes to define the candidate dimension grid.

    line 46
  13. Very specific:

    Use subset_sizes and short_run_steps to express exploratory run scale.

    line 47
  14. Very specific:

    Use selection_weights to rebalance cost, success_rate, and expected_gain.

    line 48
  15. Very specific:

    Use primary_metric and metric_goal so downstream ranking can order executed candidates consistently.

    line 49
  16. Very specific:

    Use references/execution-policy.md, ../ai-research-reproduction/references/explore-variant-spec.md, …

    line 61

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

explore-run

Use this as the Rigor Improve / Rigor Explore run leaf skill. The installed slug remains explore-run for compatibility.

Use the shared operating principles in ../ai-research-reproduction/references/agent-operating-principles.md; this skill should guide candidate run planning while preserving model judgment about the active repo.

When to apply

  • When the researcher explicitly authorizes exploratory runs.
  • When the task is a small-subset validation, short-cycle training probe, batch sweep, idle-GPU search, or quick transfer-learning trial.
  • When the output should rank candidate runs rather than certify trusted success.

When not to apply

  • When the user wants trusted training execution or conservative verification.
  • When there is no explicit exploratory authorization.
  • When the task is repository setup, intake, or debugging.

Clear boundaries

  • This skill owns exploratory execution planning and summary only.
  • Use ai-research-explore instead when the task spans both current_research coordination and exploratory code changes.
  • It may hand off actual command execution to minimal-run-and-audit or run-train.
  • It should keep experiment state isolated from the trusted baseline.
  • It should prefer small-subset and short-cycle checks before heavier exploratory runs.
  • It should label run results as bounded evidence and explain when a comparison is not directly fair.

Ranking Semantics

  • Pre-execution candidate selection uses three factors: cost, success_rate, and expected_gain.
  • Default weights should stay conservative unless the researcher explicitly provides selection_weights.
  • Budget pruning still applies after scoring through max_variants and max_short_cycle_runs.
  • If runs are executed later, downstream ranking should switch to real execution evidence, not stay purely heuristic.

Variant Spec Hints

  • Use variant_axes to define the candidate dimension grid.
  • Use subset_sizes and short_run_steps to express exploratory run scale.
  • Use selection_weights to rebalance cost, success_rate, and expected_gain.
  • Use primary_metric and metric_goal so downstream ranking can order executed candidates consistently.

Output expectations

  • explore_outputs/CHANGESET.md
  • explore_outputs/SCIENTIFIC_CHANGELOG.md
  • explore_outputs/COMPARABILITY_REPORT.md
  • explore_outputs/TOP_RUNS.md
  • explore_outputs/status.json

Notes

Use references/execution-policy.md, ../ai-research-reproduction/references/explore-variant-spec.md, ../ai-research-reproduction/references/deep-learning-experiment-principles.md, scripts/plan_variants.py, and scripts/write_outputs.py.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.