Atlas / Skills / wanshuiyin / Ablation Planner

Ablation PlannerSAFE

skills/wanshuiyin/ablation-planner

ARIS ⚔️ (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) — Lightweight Markdown-only skills for autonomous ML research: cross-model review loops, idea discovery, and experiment automation. No framework, no lock-in — works with Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, or any LLM agent.

Verdict
SAFE
Grade
B
Trust score
89 /100
Version
—
Hosts
1 documented
License
MIT
Stars
17,804
01

Overview

ARIS ⚔️ (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) — Lightweight Markdown-only skills for autonomous ML research: cross-model review loops, idea discovery, and experiment automation. No framework, no lock-in — works with Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, or any LLM agent.

Read from source at commit 970c74c2303eOBSERVED · 2026-10-21
Advertisement
02

Host compatibility

What the documentation claims. We have not run a compatibility test.

HostStatusNotes
codexmentioned
03

What it tells the agent

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: ablation-planner
description: "Use when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission."
argument-hint: "[method-description-or-claim]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply
---

# Ablation Planner

Systematically design ablation studies that answer the questions reviewers will ask. Codex leads the design (reviewer perspective), CC reviews feasibility and implements.

## Context: $ARGUMENTS

## When to Use

- Main results pass `/result-to-claim` with claim_supported = yes or partial
- User explicitly requests ablation planning
- `/auto-review-loop` reviewer identifies missing ablations

## Workflow

### Step 1: Prepare Context

CC reads available project files to build the full picture:
- Method description and components (from `idea-stage/docs/research_contract.md`, legacy `docs/research_contract.md`, or project CLAUDE.md)
- Current experiment results (from EXPERIMENT_LOG.md, EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md, or W&B)
- Confirmed and intended claims (from result-to-claim output or project notes)
- Available compute resources (from CLAUDE.md server config, if present)

### Step 2: Codex Designs Ablations

```
mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-6-astra
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    You are a rigorous ML reviewer planning ablation studies.
    Given this method and results, design ablations that:

    1. Isolate the contribution of each novel component
    2. Answer questions reviewers will definitely ask
    3. Test sensitivity to key hyperparameters
    4. Compare against natural alternative design choices

    Method: [description from project files]
    Components: [list of removable/replaceable components]
    Current results: [key metrics from experiments]
    Claims: [what we claim and current evidence]

    For each ablation, specify:
    - name: what to change (e.g., "remove module X", "replace Y with Z")
    - what_it_tests: the specific question this answers
    - expected_if_component_matters: what we predict if the component is important
    - priority: 1 (must-run) to 5 (nice-to-have)

    Also provide:
    - coverage_assessment: what reviewer questions these ablations answer
    - unnecessary_ablations: experiments that seem useful but won't add insight
    - suggested_order: run order optimized for maximum early information
    - estimated_compute: total GPU-hours estimate
```

### Step 3: Parse Ablation Plan

Normalize Codex response into structured format:

```markdown
## Ablation Plan

### Component Ablations (highest priority)
| # | Name | What It Tests | Expected If Matters | Priority |
|---|------|---------------|---------------------|----------|
| 1 | remove module X | contribution of X | performance drops on metric Y | 1 |
| 2 | replace X with simpler Z | value of learned vs fixed | drops, especially on dataset A | 2 |

### Hyperparameter Sensitivity
| # | Parameter | Values to Test | What It Tests | Priority |
|---|-----------|---------------|---------------|----------|
| 3 | lambda | [0.01, 0.1, 1.0] | sensitivity to regularization | 3 |

### Design Choice Comparisons
| # | Name | What It Tests | Priority |
|---|------|---------------|----------|
| 4 | joint vs separate matching | whether joint adds value | 4 |

### Coverage Assessment
[What reviewer questions these ablations answer]

### Unnecessary Ablations
[Experiments that seem useful but won't add insight — skip these]

### Run Order
[Optimized for maximum early information]

### Estimated Compute
[Total GPU-hours]
```

### Step 4: CC Reviews Feasibility

Before running anything, CC checks:
- Compute budget: can we afford all ablations with available GPUs?
- Code changes: which ablations need code modifications vs config-only changes?
- Dependencies: which ablations can run in parallel?
- Cuts: if budget is tight, propose removing lower-priority ablations and ask Codex to confirm

### Step 5: Implement and Run

1. Create configs/scripts for each ablation (config-only changes first)
2. Smoke test each ablation before full run
3. Run in suggested order, using descriptive names (e.g., `ablation-no-module-X`)
4. Track results in EXPERIMENT_LOG.md
5. After all ablations complete → update findings.md with insights

## Rules

- **Codex leads the design. CC does not pre-filter or bias the ablation list** before Codex sees it. Codex thinks like a reviewer; CC thinks like an engineer.
- Every ablation must have a clear `what_it_tests` and `expected_if_component_matters`. No "just try it" experiments.
- Config-only ablations take priority over those needing code changes (faster, less error-prone).
- If total compute exceeds budget, CC proposes cuts and asks Codex to re-prioritize — don't silently drop ablations.
- Component ablations (remove/replace) take priority over hyperparameter sweeps.
- Do not generate ablations for components identical to the baseline (no-op ablations).
- Record all ablation results in EXPERIMENT_LOG.md, including negative results (component removal had no effect = important finding).
04

Trust audit

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

LayerWhat it checksResult
L0Provenance & inventoryPASS
L1Static analysis of the codeNA
L2Instruction surface (what it tells the agent)PASS
L3Class-specific surfacePASS
L4Behavioural (sandbox)SKIPPED

What the source does

Filesystem
none-observed
Network
none-observed
Shell
none-observed
Dependencies
pinned
Secrets in source
none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.

Audited 2026-10-21 · audit v0.4.1 · source sha 970c74c2303efull audit observations/trust-audit/skill/wanshuiyin__ablation-planner.json · Report an issue / request a re-scan
05

Audit history

Every audit this skill has had.

DateSourceVerdictGradeScoreChange
2026-10-21970c74c2303eSAFEB89first audit
06

Questions

What does the ablation-planner — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep skill do?

ARIS ⚔️ (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) — Lightweight Markdown-only skills for autonomous ML research: cross-model review loops, idea discovery, and experiment automation. No framework, no lock-in — works with Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, or any LLM agent.

Is ablation-planner — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep safe to install?

The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.

What can ablation-planner — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep access on my machine?

The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.

Which assistants does ablation-planner — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep work with?

Its documentation mentions codex. That is what the text claims, not a compatibility test we ran.

How current is this page?

The grade is for one exact copy of the source (970c74c2303e), read on 2026-10-21. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.

Add this badge to your README

Shows this page's audit result and links back to it. It updates when the audit does.

ModelsAtlas audit badge

Markdown
[![ModelsAtlas audit: Ablation Planner](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/wanshuiyin/ablation-planner/badge.svg)](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/wanshuiyin/ablation-planner/)

Not your listing, or something out of date? Claim or update your listing.

Advertisement