agentleFS
saint0xsaint0x/my-skills/dataset-engineering/SKILL.md

dataset-engineering

Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when designing, auditing, expanding, or materializing datasets for SFT, RL, RLM, or coding-agent evals. Especially useful for held-out split design, OOD generalization, hard negatives, balanced tool coverage, leakage prevention, project-builder data, and datasets that expose real production behavior.

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

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when data quality determines the model signal.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not merge these into a blurry aggregate until each component is understood.

    line 24
  3. Distinctive:

    no duplicated prompt tails that teach echo

    line 37
  4. Distinctive:

    If eval differs from train only by metadata, treat it as leakage.

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    Before GPU time, check:

    line 86

≈ “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

Dataset Engineering

Use this skill when data quality determines the model signal.

Principle

A dataset is an experiment. Each corpus should expose one clear behavior, failure mode, or generalization question.

Dataset Types

  • contract gate: exact known output format
  • generalization gate: new wording, same behavior
  • OOD gate: new problem families, same production bar
  • hard-contrast gate: target against plausible wrong choices
  • preservation gate: solved behavior that must not regress
  • live canary: executable workflow and side-effect proof
  • project-builder gate: inspect/build/test/expose/verify trajectories

Do not merge these into a blurry aggregate until each component is understood.

Split Discipline

Require:

  • disjoint prompts between train and eval
  • fresh OOD wording
  • stable category labels across related gates
  • balanced canonical tool coverage
  • explicit action/tool ratio
  • deterministic materialization
  • known expected outputs
  • no duplicated prompt tails that teach echo

If eval differs from train only by metadata, treat it as leakage.

Hard Negatives

Good negatives are tempting:

  • correct tool with wrong arguments
  • wrong tool with plausible arguments
  • adjacent action family
  • unsafe action instead of approval pause
  • short shortcut against longer target
  • generic checklist instead of project-specific plan
  • prompt echo or wrapper continuation

Random bad answers teach little. Plausible bad answers teach taste.

Tool Data

For each canonical tool, verify:

  • count per split
  • schema completeness
  • exact argument object
  • execution validity
  • safety side-effect expectations
  • route ambiguity cases

Tool selection and argument exactness must be scored separately.

Project Data

Strong project-builder targets include:

  • repo/workspace inspection
  • bounded slice selection
  • interface or contract definition
  • implementation step
  • deterministic tests
  • endpoint/CLI/probe exposure
  • user-perspective smoke
  • numeric evidence or measurable signal
  • limitations and rollback notes

Reject generic plans, toy-only tasks, unsafe host access, and unverified claims.

Pre-Training Validation

Before GPU time, check:

  • sample counts
  • split disjointness
  • tool counts
  • action/tool balance
  • JSON parseability
  • schema validity
  • target family coverage
  • hard-negative coverage
  • expected failure mode
  • artifact path and materialization command

Documentation

Record why the corpus exists, counts, split rules, held-out families, hard-negative design, validation commands, artifact path, baseline failure, and intended next training action.

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.