agentleFS
subarnasaikiasubarnasaikia/kaggle-skills/.claude/skills/post-submission-review/SKILL.md

post-submission-review

Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

After any kaggle submission, diff against the prior best submission, fetch the new public score, write the outcome to the competition's submissions/LOG.md, and capture a learning if the delta is notable. Triggered automatically by a PostToolUse hook on `kaggle competitions submit`. Also use when the user says "review that submission" or "what did that submission do".

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

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

    Identify the submission just made: Read the last line of competitions/<slug>/submissions/LOG.md if present, otherwise list recent …

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    Stop once status is complete or error.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    If no git history, ask the user in one line: "What changed since last submission?"

    line 30
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't auto-capture learnings on noise-level deltas — save the slot for real signal.

    line 44
  5. Very specific:

    Don't trust a single submission's public score on a small leaderboard — note it but flag cv-lb-mismatch as a risk.

    line 45
  6. Distinctive:

    Don't re-submit the same artifact to "check noise." Submission quota is precious.

    line 46

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Post-Submission Review

The discipline that turns each submission into a data point with a lesson attached.

Steps

  1. Identify the submission just made. Read the last line of competitions/<slug>/submissions/LOG.md if present, otherwise list recent submissions:
    kaggle competitions submissions <slug> --page-size 3
  2. Poll for score. Up to ~3 minutes, every 15s:
    kaggle competitions submissions <slug> --page-size 1
    Stop once status is complete or error.
  3. Compute delta against prior best. Prior best = highest publicScore in submission history. Respect the scoring direction — higher-better vs lower-better; read from competitions/<slug>/CLAUDE.md.
  4. Append / update the LOG.md row with final public score and a one-line notes field.
  5. Classify the outcome:
    • Improved > meaningful threshold (competition-specific; default 0.001 absolute) → pattern learning candidate.
    • Regressed > threshold → scar learning candidate.
    • Flat ±threshold → no learning; log as noise-equivalent in notes.
    • Errored (invalid format, timeout) → scar, always.
  6. Collect the cause. Based on session context: what changed between this submission and the prior best?
    • Use git: git log --oneline <prior-commit>..HEAD -- competitions/<slug>.
    • If no git history, ask the user in one line: "What changed since last submission?"
  7. If a learning candidate, invoke capture-learning with:
    • scope: <slug> unless the change clearly generalizes globally.
    • Scar or pattern per step 5.
    • Tags: submission, <metric-name>, and any technique tag (e.g. feature-eng, hyperparam, ensemble).
  8. Summarize to the user:
    Submission: <file> — <score> (Δ +0.0042 vs best)
    Cause: <what changed>
    Captured: L-… (pattern)

Do NOT

  • Don't auto-capture learnings on noise-level deltas — save the slot for real signal.
  • Don't trust a single submission's public score on a small leaderboard — note it but flag cv-lb-mismatch as a risk.
  • Don't re-submit the same artifact to "check noise." Submission quota is precious.

Lineage

Treat each submission as a node in a tree whose parent is the prior best. The delta is the edge label. Over time, this tree shows which branches paid off. When you capture a learning, reference the submission IDs ("L-… explains the gain from sub-023 → sub-024").

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.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.