doc-to-lora-evaluator
Skill16 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Evaluate whether Doc-to-LoRA is the right path for turning documents into parametric memory, and guide a safe proof-of-concept before investing in a full plugin or training pipeline. Use when a user wants to internalize long documents, reduce repeated context costs, compare Doc-to-LoRA against RAG or long-context prompting, or assess hardware/model/data risks for document-to-adapter workflows.
In this repository94 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-friction-ledgerSkill
- agent-learning-layer-triageSkill
- agent-operations-contractSkill
- agents-best-practicesSkill
- agent-tool-contract-reviewSkill
- anti-slop-reviewSkill
- architecture-deepening-reviewSkill
- assumption-excavationSkill
- authorized-security-routerSkill
- book-to-skillSkill
- bounded-evaluationSkill
- bounded-growth-loopSkill
- bounded-orchestration-contractSkill
- brief-first-executionSkill
- browser-verificationSkill
- bug-evidence-protocolSkill
- codex-review-loopSkill
- compaction-survivalSkill
- complexity-optimizerSkill
- confidence-fragility-reviewSkill
- context-degradation-reviewSkill
- corporate-surfaceSkill
- delivery-baseline-auditSkill
- delivery-preflight-gateSkill
- design-critique-polishSkill
- designmd-brand-kitSkill
- design-register-bootstrapSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- doc-grounded-grillingSkill
- durable-context-maintenanceSkill
- dynamic-workflow-packetsSkill
- editorial-surfaceSkill
- evidence-ledger-researchSkill
- filesystem-context-disciplineSkill
- fluid-interaction-reviewSkill
- frontend-product-builderSkill
- frontend-taste-layerSkill
- git-native-context-contractSkill
- goal-loop-designerSkill
- graph-guided-code-readingSkill
- handoffSkill
- happy-handoffSkill
- html-brief-artifactSkill
- html-diagram-artifactSkill
- hypothesis-diversificationSkill
- idea-to-ship-gatesSkill
- knowledge-base-enrichmentSkill
- lean-context-layoutSkill
- local-inference-tuningSkill
- loop-hardening-contractSkill
- loopops-protocolSkill
- loop-readiness-reviewSkill
- lottie-motion-builderSkill
- minimal-diff-builderSkill
- motion-review-gateSkill
- overengineering-reviewSkill
- personal-workspace-routerSkill
- phase-spec-executionSkill
- pipeline-readiness-gateSkill
- plan-to-issuesSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 33
Prefer Doc-to-LoRA only when most of these are true:
- Distinctive: line 42
Prefer RAG, summaries, or long-context prompting when:
- Distinctive: line 56
document size, format, sensitivity, and update frequency.
- Distinctive: line 64
Read the official implementation and paper narrowly enough to confirm current setup commands, supported checkpoints, and caveats.
- Distinctive: line 66
Create an evidence ledger with at least 8-12 questions:
- Distinctive: line 71
Run or specify baselines:
- Distinctive: line 108
If implementation is requested, produce a minimal plan first.
≈ “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
Doc To LoRA Evaluator
Evaluate Doc-to-LoRA as an engineering option before treating it as a production memory layer.
Doc-to-LoRA is a research pattern where a hypernetwork generates a LoRA adapter from a document so later queries can use the internalized information without re-sending the original long context. This skill is a decision and proof-of-concept gate, not a promise that every local machine can run the full pipeline.
Use For
- comparing Doc-to-LoRA against RAG, long-context prompting, summaries, fine-tuning, or ordinary LoRA training;
- deciding whether a document set is a good fit for parametric memory;
- planning a small local or GPU-backed proof of concept with the public SakanaAI implementation;
- designing validation prompts that compare base-model, long-context, RAG, and internalized-adapter behavior;
- identifying hallucination, staleness, licensing, privacy, model-compatibility, and VRAM risks before implementation.
Do Not Use For
- ordinary document QA where RAG or direct context is simpler and cheap enough;
- irreversible model updates or production deployment without evaluation;
- private or licensed documents unless the user explicitly authorizes local processing and artifact storage;
- claiming model memory improvements without side-by-side tests.
Decision Gate
Prefer Doc-to-LoRA only when most of these are true:
- the same document or knowledge bundle will be queried repeatedly;
- re-sending the full context is expensive, slow, or exceeds the target model context window;
- the document is stable enough that adapter regeneration is acceptable;
- answers need durable factual recall more than open-ended retrieval transparency;
- the team can run the target model and generated adapters in a controlled environment;
- evaluation can compare against direct-context or RAG baselines.
Prefer RAG, summaries, or long-context prompting when:
- source provenance must be shown on every answer;
- documents change frequently or require fine-grained deletes;
- the task is one-off;
- available hardware cannot run the target model plus Doc-to-LoRA stack;
- user trust depends on visible retrieved passages.
Preflight Checklist
Before implementation, capture:
- target host: local machine, workstation GPU, cloud GPU, or hosted notebook;
- model family and license constraints;
- document size, format, sensitivity, and update frequency;
- expected query pattern: one-shot QA, repeated support, personal memory, research corpus, or product feature;
- baseline approach to compare against: direct context, RAG, summary, fine-tune, or ordinary LoRA;
- success metrics: factual accuracy, latency, memory use, adapter size, regeneration time, and failure behavior;
- rollback path: reset adapter, delete generated artifact, or fall back to RAG/direct context.
Proof-Of-Concept Workflow
- Read the official implementation and paper narrowly enough to confirm current setup commands, supported checkpoints, and caveats.
- Select one small, non-sensitive document with known answerable facts.
- Create an evidence ledger with at least 8-12 questions:
- direct factual recall;
- negative controls not in the document;
- source-confusable questions;
- stale or changed-fact questions when relevant.
- Run or specify baselines:
- base model without context;
- model with raw document context when feasible;
- RAG or summary baseline if this is the realistic alternative;
- Doc-to-LoRA internalized adapter.
- Compare answers for accuracy, unsupported claims, latency, memory use, and operational complexity.
- Decide:
Reject,Prototype further, orPromote to plugin/tool wrapper.
Risk Gates
Block promotion beyond PoC if:
- generated adapters cannot be traced back to source documents and version IDs;
- private documents are persisted without an explicit storage and deletion policy;
- evaluation only tests positive recall and skips negative controls;
- the approach hides citations that the product actually needs;
- hallucinations increase compared with RAG or direct context;
- hardware assumptions are unrealistic for the intended users;
- model or document licenses do not permit the intended usage.
Output Contract
Return a compact decision memo:
Decision: Reject | Prototype further | Promote to wrapper/plugin
Use case:
Document set:
Baseline compared:
Hardware/model assumptions:
Expected upside:
Main blockers:
PoC plan:
Verification questions:
Rollback/deletion plan:If implementation is requested, produce a minimal plan first. Do not start by building a general plugin.
Attribution
Adapted from SakanaAI's public Doc-to-LoRA research and reference implementation into an ABVX evaluation gate for coding-agent workflows.
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.

