agentleFS
probabl-aiprobabl-ai/skore-skills/skills/review-ml-experiment/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Very specific:

    Read the design note, the EDA summary, the last History row, and the digest.

    line 43
  2. Very specific:

    Write one file per candidate at journal/ideas/<stem>-<slug>.md with Experiment, Source (audit:<stem>:checks.<code> or design:<stem>), …

    line 53
  3. Very specific:

    If that table is missing, insert it between History and Backlog.

    line 63
  4. Very specific:

    Do not write History, Backlog, Status, or a design note.

    line 78
  5. Very specific:

    Do not call skore.evaluate or project.put.

    line 80
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not pick a winning idea.

    line 81
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not invent a missing child's procedure.

    line 82

≈ “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

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

  1. Run python -m skore_skills status and python -m skore_skills review consent --stem <stem>. Treat JSON action as authoritative.
    • stop — no scratch/results/<stem>/report.html. Name that file and stop. Do not audit. Do not record-outcome.
    • audit — report exists, digest does not. Load audit-ml-pipeline when installed. That skill runs materialize.py once and does not execute the audit file.
    • proceed — digest already on disk. Do not re-run materialize.py unless the user asked to re-audit. A re-audit loads audit-ml-pipeline; that skill runs materialize.py once. Otherwise refresh idea files from the existing digest.
  2. Missing audit skill → one-line skip. Return n/a — audit not run and write no idea files. Do not open the Project or call report.* here.
  3. 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-idea or search-ml-literature writes that file and its Ideas row when the user asks. Load research-ml-practice only if status.skills.research-ml-practice is true and an audit or design candidate needs sources; otherwise one-line skip. Do not invent papers, metrics, or a winner.
  4. Write one file per candidate at journal/ideas/<stem>-<slug>.md with Experiment, Source (audit:<stem>:checks.<code> or design:<stem>), Triage open, 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's Triage value and the matching Ideas status. A new candidate is open.
  5. Upsert one ## Ideas row per file in journal/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 is open, discarded, or aside, matching Triage. A promoted file has no Ideas row. Experiment is this run's stem. Source is copied verbatim. Edit only that table.
  6. Return the digest, JSON finding from python -m skore_skills audit finding --stem <stem>, the locator from python -m skore_skills loop locator --stem <stem>, and the idea paths.

Stop conditions

  • On proceed, do not re-run materialize.py unless the user asked to re-audit.
  • Do not write History, Backlog, Status, or a design note. The Ideas table is the only JOURNAL.md edit.
  • Do not call skore.evaluate or project.put.
  • Do not pick a winning idea.
  • Do not invent a missing child's procedure.

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.