agentleFS
vosslabvosslab/vosslab-skills/skills/experts/vision-expert/SKILL.md

vision-expert

Skill5 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when computer-vision pipeline design or evaluation is central, including image processing, detection, segmentation, tracking, OCR, datasets, robustness, or model selection.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

25 rules. About 0 are common, 20 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈20

    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. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to turn vague "make the model see better" requests into explicit computer-vision workflows with measurable inputs, outputs, …

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer simple, testable pipelines and evidence-driven evaluation over fashionable models or premature complexity.

    line 11
  3. Distinctive:

    Search the target repo for existing CV source files, model configs, pipeline scripts, and evaluation code.

    line 17
  4. Distinctive:

    Search for existing tests or benchmarks that characterize current behavior.

    line 18
  5. Distinctive:

    If any of these exist, follow the existing-pipeline path: inspect model weights, validation split, and failure logs.

    line 19
  6. Distinctive:

    If none exist, follow the greenfield path: seed a balanced 100-500 image set with a held-out test split.

    line 20
  7. Very specific:

    Read references/project_workflow.md for the full branching workflow, vision contract spec, and CV review checklist.

    line 21
  8. Very specific:

    Read references/task_selection.md when the request is underspecified or multiple CV framings are possible.

    line 27
  9. Distinctive:

    Start with a baseline that can be inspected and benchmarked.

    line 30
  10. Distinctive:

    Prefer classical CV when the task is geometric, threshold-driven, template-based, or small-data.

    line 32
  11. Distinctive:

    Prefer learned models when invariance, semantic understanding, or scale make heuristic pipelines brittle.

    line 33
  12. Very specific:

    Read references/pipeline_design.md when choosing between classical CV, hybrid, and model-heavy approaches.

    line 34
  13. Distinctive:

    Check label quality, class balance, resolution, compression artifacts, lighting, occlusion, and domain shift.

    line 43
  14. Distinctive:

    Treat poor annotations and mismatched evaluation data as first-order causes of failure.

    line 44
  15. Distinctive:

    Do not blame the model first when the dataset is weak or misaligned.

    line 45
  16. Very specific:

    Read references/debugging_and_failure_analysis.md when performance is unstable, errors cluster in strange ways, or the model seems to fail …

    line 51
  17. Very specific:

    Read references/testing_and_oracles.md when building the fixture corpus or selecting oracles for a task type.

    line 52
  18. Distinctive:

    Prefer targeted fixes tied to a known failure mode.

    line 56
  19. Distinctive:

    Keep intermediate visualizations so behavior is explainable.

    line 57
  20. Distinctive:

    Use OpenCV for image I/O, geometry, filtering, thresholding, contour work, calibration, and fast visual debugging.

    line 61
  21. Distinctive:

    Use PyTorch-based models when the task needs modern learned vision methods and the environment supports them.

    line 62
  22. Distinctive:

    If the work is OpenCV-heavy, check the local books before reinventing standard pipelines or utility patterns.

    line 66
  23. Distinctive:

    Avoid changing data, model, thresholds, and evaluation all at once.

    line 73
  24. Distinctive:

    Avoid shipping a CV system that has never been reviewed on hard negatives and edge cases.

    line 74
  25. Distinctive:

    When using this skill, aim to produce:

    line 79

≈ “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

Computer Vision Expert

Overview

Use this skill to turn vague "make the model see better" requests into explicit computer-vision workflows with measurable inputs, outputs, and failure modes. Prefer simple, testable pipelines and evidence-driven evaluation over fashionable models or premature complexity.

Workflow

  1. Detect project state. Consult references/topic_index.md first to match the user problem to a CV task, default library, and guide file. Then inspect the target repo:
  • Search the target repo for existing CV source files, model configs, pipeline scripts, and evaluation code.
  • Search for existing tests or benchmarks that characterize current behavior.
  • If any of these exist, follow the existing-pipeline path: inspect model weights, validation split, and failure logs; establish a per-class baseline before changing anything; tie each proposed change to a specific failing case; prove improvement with before/after metrics on the held-out set.
  • If none exist, follow the greenfield path: seed a balanced 100-500 image set with a held-out test split; write a vision contract covering resolution, class taxonomy, FPS budget, and miss-vs-false-alarm tolerance; then build and validate the minimal pipeline.
  • Read references/project_workflow.md for the full branching workflow, vision contract spec, and CV review checklist.
  1. Define the exact vision task.
  • Determine whether the task is classification, detection, segmentation, keypoints, tracking, OCR, retrieval, restoration, or measurement.
  • Identify the input domain: still image, video, live camera, document scan, microscopy, satellite, industrial, or another domain.
  • Define success in measurable terms such as accuracy, recall, latency, FPS, false positives, localization error, or downstream business impact.
  • Read references/task_selection.md when the request is underspecified or multiple CV framings are possible.
  1. Choose the simplest viable pipeline.
  • Start with a baseline that can be inspected and benchmarked.
  • Separate data ingestion, preprocessing, inference, postprocessing, and evaluation.
  • Prefer classical CV when the task is geometric, threshold-driven, template-based, or small-data.
  • Prefer learned models when invariance, semantic understanding, or scale make heuristic pipelines brittle.
  • Read references/pipeline_design.md when choosing between classical CV, hybrid, and model-heavy approaches.
  • Reach for these books when they match the task:
    • "Learning OpenCV" for broad OpenCV techniques, feature detection, and matching workflows.
    • "OpenCV Cookbook" for practical implementation patterns and utility code.
    • "Video Object Tracking" for tracking-specific tasks, datasets, and methods.
    • "Multiple View Geometry" for camera models, epipolar geometry, homographies, triangulation, calibration, and multi-view reconstruction.
  1. Make data quality explicit.
  • Check label quality, class balance, resolution, compression artifacts, lighting, occlusion, and domain shift.
  • Treat poor annotations and mismatched evaluation data as first-order causes of failure.
  • Do not blame the model first when the dataset is weak or misaligned.
  1. Evaluate before optimizing.
  • Establish a baseline metric and representative validation set.
  • Inspect failures by category rather than averaging everything into one score.
  • Measure speed, memory, and deployment constraints alongside accuracy.
  • Read references/debugging_and_failure_analysis.md when performance is unstable, errors cluster in strange ways, or the model seems to fail "randomly."
  • Read references/testing_and_oracles.md when building the fixture corpus or selecting oracles for a task type.
  1. Improve iteratively.
  • Change one major factor at a time: data, preprocessing, architecture, thresholding, postprocessing, or evaluation.
  • Prefer targeted fixes tied to a known failure mode.
  • Keep intermediate visualizations so behavior is explainable.

Implementation defaults

  • Use OpenCV for image I/O, geometry, filtering, thresholding, contour work, calibration, and fast visual debugging.
  • Use PyTorch-based models when the task needs modern learned vision methods and the environment supports them.
  • Save representative outputs with overlays, masks, boxes, or heatmaps so predictions can be inspected visually.
  • For video, define frame sampling, buffering, temporal smoothing, and throughput requirements up front.
  • For OCR, treat document cleanup, orientation, crop quality, and layout structure as part of the pipeline, not preprocessing trivia.
  • If the work is OpenCV-heavy, check the local books before reinventing standard pipelines or utility patterns.
  • Load the local-only books first when present; see references/local_books.md and the survey in references/reference_survey.md.

Quality bar

  • Favor measurable improvement over architecture churn.
  • Favor robust pipelines over benchmark theater.
  • Avoid changing data, model, thresholds, and evaluation all at once.
  • Avoid shipping a CV system that has never been reviewed on hard negatives and edge cases.
  • State what the model cannot do, not only what it can do.

Output expectations

When using this skill, aim to produce:

  • A clearly framed CV task with explicit inputs, outputs, and success metrics.
  • A pipeline design that can be implemented and debugged in stages.
  • Visual inspection artifacts for representative successes and failures.
  • A short explanation of the main failure modes and the next best improvement step.

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.