review-ml-experiment
Skill144 starsChanged 19 days agoBSD-3-ClauseView on GitHub
Read the stored report, then write one idea file and one Ideas row per candidate. Trigger after a successful evaluate, on "review this stem", or when review consent is audit or proceed. Do not write History, Backlog, or a design note.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- probabl-ai/skillsword for word, first seen Oct 27, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- probabl-ai/skills★ 144100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- add-python-packageSkill
- audit-ml-pipelineSkill
- build-ml-pipelineSkill
- choose-python-librarySkill
- evaluate-ml-pipelineSkill
- explore-ml-dataSkill
- export-ml-notebookSkill
- export-ml-projectSkill
- export-ml-siteSkill
- frame-ml-problemSkill
- manage-ml-backlogSkill
- model-ml-pipelineSkill
- persist-ml-gitSkill
- plot-ml-figureSkill
- research-ml-practiceSkill
- review-ml-choicesSkill
- search-ml-literatureSkill
- setup-gitSkill
- setup-ml-projectSkill
- setup-python-envSkill
- setup-workspaceSkill
- shape-user-ideaSkill
- smoke-test-ml-pipelineSkill
- sync-ml-reportsSkill
- triage-ml-taskSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 43
Read the design note, the EDA summary, the last History row, and the digest.
- Very specific: line 53
Write one file per candidate at journal/ideas/<stem>-<slug>.md with Experiment, Source (audit:<stem>:checks.<code> or design:<stem>), …
- Very specific: line 63
If that table is missing, insert it between History and Backlog.
- Very specific: line 78
Do not write History, Backlog, Status, or a design note.
- Very specific: line 80
Do not call skore.evaluate or project.put.
- Distinctive: line 81
Do not pick a winning idea.
- Distinctive: line 82
Do not invent a missing child's procedure.
≈ “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
Review ML Experiment
Optional loop step after evaluate. Record-outcome stays with the caller. This skill writes idea files and their Ideas rows. The stem is whichever experiment was reviewed. Check results were stored with the report, so the audit reads them.
Human-facing prose
Details: setup-workspace references/human_facing_prose.md.
Idea files describe this report and the follow-up — not skill
ids, cells run, or the wrapper CLI.
Procedure
- Run
python -m skore_skills statusandpython -m skore_skills review consent --stem <stem>. Treat JSONactionas authoritative.stop— noscratch/results/<stem>/report.html. Name that file and stop. Do not audit. Do not record-outcome.audit— report exists, digest does not. Loadaudit-ml-pipelinewhen installed. That skill runsmaterialize.pyonce and does not execute the audit file.proceed— digest already on disk. Do not re-runmaterialize.pyunless the user asked to re-audit. A re-audit loadsaudit-ml-pipeline; that skill runsmaterialize.pyonce. Otherwise refresh idea files from the existing digest.
- Missing audit skill → one-line skip. Return
n/a — audit not runand write no idea files. Do not open the Project or callreport.*here. - Read the design note, the EDA summary, the last History row,
and the digest. One candidate per
Issues:/Tips:line. A methodological gap the design note named and this run did not test is another candidate. A user idea or a literature query is not a candidate here: after this skill returns,shape-user-ideaorsearch-ml-literaturewrites that file and its Ideas row when the user asks. Loadresearch-ml-practiceonly ifstatus.skills.research-ml-practiceis true and an audit or design candidate needs sources; otherwise one-line skip. Do not invent papers, metrics, or a winner. - Write one file per candidate at
journal/ideas/<stem>-<slug>.mdwith Experiment, Source (audit:<stem>:checks.<code>ordesign:<stem>), Triageopen, Question, Why now, What changes, Open gaps. No acceptance criteria. For a check candidate, read the documentation URL on that line and apply that page's recommendation in What changes. On a refresh, keep an existing file'sTriagevalue and the matching Ideas status. A new candidate isopen. - Upsert one
## Ideasrow per file injournal/JOURNAL.md. If that table is missing, insert it between History and Backlog. Columns: Question, Status, Experiment, Source. Question is the file's Question as plain text, not a link. Status isopen,discarded, oraside, matchingTriage. Apromotedfile has no Ideas row. Experiment is this run's stem. Source is copied verbatim. Edit only that table. - Return the digest, JSON
findingfrompython -m skore_skills audit finding --stem <stem>, the locator frompython -m skore_skills loop locator --stem <stem>, and the idea paths.
Stop conditions
- On
proceed, do not re-runmaterialize.pyunless the user asked to re-audit. - Do not write History, Backlog, Status, or a design note.
The Ideas table is the only
JOURNAL.mdedit. - Do not call
skore.evaluateorproject.put. - Do not pick a winning idea.
- Do not invent a missing child's procedure.
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.

