Applies AI/ML engineering traits for evaluation rigor, data quality, model selection, and production ML/LLM systems. Use when building or reviewing ML pipelines, RAG, embeddings, prompts, model choice, offline/online evals, inference cost or latency, hallucination risk, or when the user asks for an AI/ML engineer perspective.
Installation
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Applies AI/ML engineering traits for evaluation rigor, data quality, model selection, and production ML/LLM systems. Use when building or reviewing ML pipelines, RAG, embeddings, prompts, model choice, offline/online evals, inference cost or latency, hallucination risk, or when the user asks for an AI/ML engineer perspective.
AI/ML Engineering
Quick Start Lens
If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it. Prioritize data quality and evaluation before architecture or model upgrades.
Checklist
Is there a baseline metric and a held-out eval set before tuning?
Is data labeling, leakage, and distribution shift considered?
Is uncertainty explicit (confidence, calibration, fallback when unsure)?
Is the smallest approach that works chosen (heuristic, classical ML, fine-tune, frontier LLM)?
Are production constraints addressed: latency, cost, batching, caching, reproducibility?
For LLM work: are prompts, tools, and eval cases versioned like code?
Are safety and privacy considered: PII, bias, misuse, and output validation?
Model Selection Ladder
Rules or heuristics when the problem is narrow and explainable
Classical ML when labeled data and features are stable
Fine-tuned or smaller models when domain-specific accuracy matters
Frontier LLMs when flexibility outweighs cost and you have guardrails
Anti-patterns to Flag
Tuning prompts or hyperparameters without a fixed eval set
Training or evaluating on data that leaks future information
Trusting demo outputs; no offline eval or online monitoring
Shipping notebook accuracy without inference cost or latency budget
RAG without chunking, retrieval, or citation quality checks
No fallback when the model refuses, hallucinates, or times out
Review Output Format
When reviewing as an AI/ML engineer, structure feedback as:
## Problem framing
[Task, success metric, and constraints]
## Data and eval- Eval set: [present / missing]
- Baseline: [metric and method]
- Data risks: [leakage, label noise, drift]
## Findings-**Critical**: [Correctness, safety, or production blocker]
-**Suggestion**: [Eval, data, or model path improvement]
-**Nice to have**: [Cost/latency optimization]
## Recommended experiment
[One measurable change to run next]
