horangi-analyze

name	horangi-analyze
description	Analyze one or more Horangi model configs against (1) HuggingFace model card claims, (2) the W&B leaderboard rankings, and (3) category-level peer comparison. Invoke when the user asks to analyze/compare model performance for a config (e.g. "analyze <config>", "compare X and Y", "이 모델 성능 분석해줘").

horangi-analyze

Produce a side-by-side analysis of 1..N Horangi model configs. Output goes to chat as markdown — never create a file unless the user explicitly asks.

Inputs

• One or more config names (YAML filename in configs/models/ without .yaml).
• W&B entity/project for the leaderboard. Always ask the user at the start — do not default to any specific project. .env values (WANDB_ENTITY, WANDB_PROJECT) can be offered as a suggestion, but confirm before using.
• If any input is missing or ambiguous, ask — don't guess.

Workflow

1. Resolve configs

For each input config:

• Read configs/models/<name>.yaml
• Extract: wandb.run_name, model.name (HF ID or hosted model ID), metadata.model_size, metadata.active_params, metadata.context_window, metadata.release_date.
• If model.name looks like a HuggingFace repo (org/model-id), that's the HF URL path. For hosted-only models (W&B Inference, OpenRouter slugs), the HF upstream may be mentioned in YAML comments or need a quick web search.

2. Fetch HF model card claims (WebFetch)

For each HF repo:

https://huggingface.co/<org>/<model-id>

Extract every numeric benchmark the card reports. Organize by category (reasoning / coding / knowledge / agentic / instruction-following / safety / long-context / multilingual). Capture variants (e.g. "AIME25 no tools" vs "AIME25 with tools", "SWE-Bench Verified OpenHands" vs "Codex"). Note the reported sampling settings if present.

Do not fabricate numbers — only what's on the page.

3. Query W&B leaderboard (wandb API)

Use this snippet to pull leaderboard-tagged runs:

import os
os.environ.setdefault('WANDB_SILENT', 'true')
from dotenv import load_dotenv
load_dotenv('.env', override=True)
import wandb, pandas as pd

api = wandb.Api()
# <entity>/<project> supplied by the user at invocation time
runs = list(api.runs(f'{entity}/{project}', filters={'tags': {'$in': ['leaderboard']}}))

rows = []
for r in runs:
    try:
        for art in r.logged_artifacts():
            if 'leaderboard_table' in art.name:
                t = art.get('leaderboard_table')
                if t:
                    df = t.get_dataframe()
                    df['run_name'] = r.name
                    rows.append(df)
                    break
    except Exception:
        pass

big = pd.concat(rows, ignore_index=True).drop_duplicates(subset='run_name', keep='last')
big = big.sort_values('FINAL_SCORE', ascending=False).reset_index(drop=True)
big['rank'] = big.index + 1

entity and project must come from the user's invocation — the skill never assumes a specific W&B path.

leaderboard_table columns include: FINAL_SCORE, 범용언어성능(GLP)_AVG, 가치정렬성능(ALT)_AVG, and 16 category columns (GLP_*, ALT_*).

For each target model, compute:

• Overall rank (out of total leaderboard runs)
• Per-category rank
• Peer comparison (filter similar open-source models by size/family)

Also fetch benchmark_detail_table for per-benchmark raw scores if a deeper HF-vs-measured comparison is needed:

for art in r.logged_artifacts():
    if 'benchmark_detail_table' in art.name:
        detail_df = art.get('benchmark_detail_table').get_dataframe()
        break

4. Match benchmarks for HF-vs-measured comparison

Common overlaps (not exhaustive):

HF benchmark	Horangi benchmark	Notes
AIME25 (no tools)	ko_aime2025	Korean translation — typically -5~10%
HLE	ko_hle	Korean subset
MMLU-Pro	kmmlu_pro	Different benchmark — KMMLU-Pro = Korean domain knowledge, not translated MMLU-Pro. Expect -15~25% gap.
SWE-Bench Verified	swebench_verified_official_80	80-sample subset, variance higher
BFCL (v4)	bfcl	Horangi uses text-based variant
IFBench (prompt)	ifeval_ko	Different — IFEval Korean ≠ IFBench
HumanEval+	humaneval_100	100-sample subset
BigCodeBench	bigcodebench_100	100-sample subset

Call these out explicitly when deltas look surprising — often it's a benchmark variant difference, not model behavior.

5. Output format

A single markdown block. Structure scales with N:

For N=1:

• Section 1: "HF claim vs horangi 측정" (comparison table of comparable benchmarks)
• Section 2: "리더보드 순위" (overall rank + category rank table)
• Section 3: "동급 피어 비교" (similar-size open-source models)
• Section 4: "결론" (3-5 bullets)

For N≥2:

• Section 1: "모델 비교" (side-by-side table, all Horangi benchmarks)
• Section 2: "HF claim vs 측정" (per-model comparison table)
• Section 3: "리더보드 순위" (all models' ranks side by side)
• Section 4: "카테고리별 우위" (which model wins which category)
• Section 5: "결론"

Rules:

• Use full model name (e.g. NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Super-120B-A12B-FP8) — never abbreviate.
• Mark deltas ≥0.05 with bold, ≥0.10 with 🔥 or ⚠️ based on direction.
• When a Horangi score suggests the benchmark variant differs from HF, say so in the Notes/결론 — don't silently compare apples to oranges.
• Rank categories by how informative they are for the model; show top-5 strengths and bottom-3 weaknesses per model, not every category.
• Keep numbers to 3 decimals (0.641 not 0.6413).
• Cite W&B run URLs at the end: https://wandb.ai/<entity>/<project>/runs/<run_id>.

Follow-up: suggest horangi-fails

After producing the analysis, inspect category rankings for each target model. If any category meets either criterion:

• Absolute: rank falls in the bottom 25% of the leaderboard (e.g. rank 68+ out of 90)
• Relative: score is ≥ 0.15 below the model's own category median (outlier weakness)

...append a "🔎 깊이 분석 권장" section listing the specific (model, benchmark) pairs to drill into, and suggest:

이 영역이 유독 낮아 보여요. 오답 경향을 자세히 보고 싶으면 /horangi-fails <config> <benchmark>로 불러주세요.

Map each weak category back to the underlying benchmark(s) from ALL_BENCHMARKS:

카테고리	대표 벤치마크
GLP_일반적지식 / 전문적지식	kmmlu, kmmlu_pro, haerae_bench_v1_*
GLP_수학적추론	hrm8k, ko_aime2025
GLP_논리적추론 / 추상적추론	ko_arc_agi, ko_hle
GLP_코딩능력	humaneval_100, bigcodebench_100, swebench_verified_official_80
GLP_함수호출	bfcl
GLP_의미해석 / 구문해석	ko_balt_700_semantic, ko_balt_700_syntax, squad_kor_v1, ko_hellaswag
ALT_유해성방지 / 윤리·도덕	korean_hate_speech, ko_moral, kobbq
ALT_환각방지	ko_hallulens_wikiqa, ko_hallulens_nonexistent, ko_truthful_qa
ALT_제어성	ifeval_ko, ko_mtbench

Don't propose horangi-fails for benchmarks that already score well, or for every weak category — pick the 1–3 most informative drill-down candidates.

Example invocations

• /horangi-analyze NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Super-120B-A12B-FP8 → skill asks for entity/project
• /horangi-analyze NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Super-120B-A12B-FP8 --entity myteam --project my-bench
• "Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 분석해줘" → skill asks for entity/project before proceeding

What NOT to do

• Don't create files unprompted — chat output only. The user will say "md로 저장해줘" if they want a file, in which case use analyses/results/<model>-analysis.md.
• Don't compare HF English benchmark numbers directly with Korean Horangi numbers without calling out the language/variant gap.
• Don't skip the HF fetch — the "NVIDIA 주장과 일치/불일치" insight is the whole point of this skill.
• Don't assume any entity/project. Always confirm at the start of the skill invocation.