interpret-validators

name	interpret-validators
description	Read saved validator artifacts and present a tier-classified report with per-rule prim lists and fix recommendations. Use when interpreting a saved run.
version	1.0.0
allowed-tools	Bash, Read
metadata	{"author":"NVIDIA Corporation","tags":["validation","reporting","analysis"]}

interpret-validators — Read, present, and answer

Invocation. This is the interpret-validators skill. In Claude Code it's also available as the alias /interpret-validators. In Codex or other agents, invoke it by name.

Python invocation. Examples below use python3 (POSIX). On Windows use py -3 (Python launcher) or the bundled interpreter at _build\target-deps\python\python.exe. The helper scripts referenced below (resolve_artifacts.py, summarize_csv.py) work under any Python 3 — no agent- or shell-specific extensions, no third-party packages.

Windows shell. Snippets target PowerShell (Claude Code's and Codex's default Windows shell). For cmd.exe, replace $Var with %VAR% and backtick line continuations with ^.

Companion to run-validators. Reads the CSV/JSON artifacts that the validator driver produces, presents a structured report, and answers follow-up questions without re-running.

The CSV is the source of truth — it contains issues from both rule families:

• Base — usd_validation_nvidia's DefaultPlugin rules (Kind, DefaultPrim, OmniOrphanedPrim, etc.). The driver's stdout summary hides these; the CSV does not.
• Usd Optimize — UsdOptimize*Checker rules from this repo. Each wraps an analysis-mode operation in source/operations/.

For the CSV schema, the entry-point allow-list, and other infrastructure details, see the validators skill.

---

What this skill covers

Each section below is load-bearing — read past Step 4 before concluding info is missing. Search for keywords like family, base, Usd Optimize, REQUIRES_MESH, Tier, T1, T2, T3, headline takeaway, findings, Rule reference to jump.

• Usage — what arguments are accepted, what follow-up questions it answers.
• Step 1 — resolve the input (asset / CSV / summary JSON), including branching to partial-report derivation when summary mode lacks a sibling CSV but carries findings.
• Step 2 — fresh / stale / missing decision for replay vs re-run.
• Step 3 — summarize the CSV via summarize_csv.py when a CSV exists (bypass: project embedded findings analysis payloads when CSV is missing — § Partial-report mode). Summarizer already lowercases severity, classifies family, normalizes locations, groups failures, sorts rules.
• Step 4 — present the report (header + summary table with family column showing both base and Usd Optimize rules, failure details, headline takeaway).
• Step 5 — follow-up questions, including "Show me only base rules / only Usd Optimize rules" and the "How do I fix <RuleName>?" answer flow.
• Rule reference — full Rule → backing op → tier table for both UsdOptimize rules and base usd-validation-nvidia rules. Base rules are not an afterthought — they get equivalent Usd Optimize-op mappings where one exists.
• Error handling — what to say when artifacts are missing/corrupt.

Companion skills:

• run-validators — produces the artifacts this skill reads.
• validators — reference doc for the underlying infrastructure.
• run-operations — runs the fix ops this skill recommends in Step 5.
• tune-parameters — interactive parameter iteration when defaults don't fully resolve a T2 rule.

For multi-op chains organized by bottleneck (memory, load time, mesh count, data quality), see .agents/operations/PIPELINES.md. For the canonical Python invocation reference, see .agents/operations/INVOCATION.md.

---

Usage

The skill takes one positional argument — the path to either an asset or a saved artifact:

Argument	Behavior
<path/to/asset.usd>	Asset mode. Looks up saved artifacts for this asset.
<path/to/issues.csv>	Direct CSV mode.
<path/to/summary.json>	Summary mode. Prefer sibling issues.csv: when present, run Step 3 on the CSV. When the CSV sibling is missing (or unreadable), use partial-report derivation below if findings is populated.

Partial-report summary mode (missing issues.csv)

The CSV carries base + Usd Optimize rows and is the authoritative source when present. Sometimes only summary.json exists beside the artifact directory — for example standalone analysis-mode output from run-validators, or a driver-written summary augmented with serialized operation analysis payloads.

Treat all of these as one analysis-derived partial report path — one set of rules for building Step 4. Do not fork separate presentation templates for envelope quirks; only fingerprinting differs.

When partial-report derivation applies

• Triggered by: summary mode (<path/to/summary.json>) and sibling issues.csv absent or unreadable.
• Prerequisite: the JSON exposes a non-empty mapping at top-level findings with per-operation payloads shaped like {…, "output": {"analysis": {…}}} beneath each findings[<operation_key>]. If the trigger fires but there is no usable findings, Step 4 cannot reconstruct failure groups — explain that the artifact lacks row-level CSV and analysis payloads and ask the user to re-run run-validators (Kit path) rather than improvising totals from bare total/by_rule alone.

Fingerprint envelopes (shared downstream)

Use this only for logging/context; both feed the same derivation afterwards.

Envelope A — Standalone analysis-mode (run-validators Python/API fallback):

• Identified by validator_path, typically "standalone-analysis-mode", alongside top-level findings. This artifact usually omits Kit timing fields.

Envelope B — Kit/driver summary envelope with embedded findings:

• Fingerprint Kit-style --summary output (for example JSON from the repo driver's perf_validators.py): top-level keys such as asset, validate_secs, open_secs, total, by_rule (Usd Optimize-filtered counts — see §Step 3 note on summary.json), and by_severity.
• Combined case: envelope B keys plus a top-level findings object (same layout expected by interpret-validators as standalone: derive from findings[<op>].output.analysis).
• issues.csv missing: even though total/by_rule summarize Usd Optimize rules, you still take this partial-report path so prim-level failure narratives match the analysis payloads instead of pretending CSV-backed detail exists.

Shared derivation (findings → Step 4)

For envelopes A and B, perform identical processing:

1. For each <operation_key> in findings, read findings[op].output.analysis and map emitted rule-like entries onto the summarizer-aligned columns using the corresponding .agents/operations/<key>.md Analysis Mode section as the schema reference (same field paths as standalone — do not diverge logic per envelope).

2. If two shapes appear in one file (validator_path and Kit timing keys), still unify on this single derivation over findings; use Kit fields only for the Step 4 header's timing lines (validate_secs / open_secs) when present.

3. Render Step 4 — header + summary table + failure details — in the normal format (family, severity columns, expandable failure blocks). Omit rules with zero issues as usual once derived.

4. Fix tier / Operation: leave Fix tier blank and use — / ? per Step 4 rules when no Rule reference mapping exists (same allowance as CSV path).

5. Headline takeaway: must include exactly this line verbatim (characters and hyphen length as shown):

   (standalone fallback — base usd_validation_nvidia rules not covered)

   — for either envelope when CSV-derived detail is unavailable, because row-level/base rule coverage depends on CSV + full usd-validation-nvidia emission and this branch does not recreate base plugin issues.

Adapt the Step 4 Header source line when CSV is absent (e.g. cite summary.json / artifact dir replay instead of CSV path).

When sibling issues.csv exists

Prefer Step 3 (summarize_csv.py / ephemeral temporary stdlib-only fallback summarizer beside the CSV) and ordinary Step 4 — do not substitute findings-only interpretation when the CSV is present.

Follow-up questions (no re-run needed):

• "Which prims are affected by <RuleName>?"
• "How do I fix <RuleName>?"
• "Show all <RuleName> failures" (when truncated in the initial report)
• "Show me only base rules" / "Show me only Usd Optimize rules"
• "Show me <RuleName> issues on <prim_path>"
• "Re-run validation"

---

Step 1 — Resolve the input

Determine what kind of path the user gave:

• Ends in .usd / .usda / .usdc / .usdz → asset mode (Step 2).
• Ends in .csv → direct CSV mode (jump to Step 3 with the user's CSV).
• Ends in .json → summary mode. Read the JSON; look for sibling issues.csv in the same directory. When the CSV exists, continue with Step 3 using that CSV. When the sibling CSV is missing, follow § Partial-report summary mode (missing issues.csv) in Usage above: fingerprint standalone vs Kit envelopes, require findings, then skip CSV summarization and synthesize Step 4 from findings[op].output.analysis instead of dumping raw summaries.

If no path is given, ask which asset / artifact to interpret.

Step 2 — Run vs. replay decision (asset mode)

If the selected Usd Optimize environment provides the optional artifact resolver, use it:

# POSIX
python3 tools/perf_validators/resolve_artifacts.py "<asset>"

# Windows (PowerShell)
py -3 tools\perf_validators\resolve_artifacts.py "<asset>"

When used, it returns the same JSON shape on all OSes. Parse the state field:

• fresh — Saved CSV is newer than the asset. Tell the user:

  Found a saved validation run from <csv_mtime>. Replaying is much faster than re-running. Should I replay, or re-run validation?

  Default to replay if the user doesn't specify — jump to Step 3 with the reported csv path.

• stale — Asset has been edited since the saved run. Tell the user:

  The asset has been modified since the last validation run (saved <csv_mtime>). I recommend re-running. Should I re-run, or replay the older results?

  If they ask to re-run, invoke the run-validators skill. If they pick replay, proceed to Step 3 but flag the staleness in the report header.

• missing — No saved run. Tell the user we need to run first; offer the run-validators skill (don't run it inline without confirmation, since validation can take minutes on large assets).

Step 3 — Summarize the CSV

Bypass: When § Partial-report summary mode (missing issues.csv) in Usage applies — sibling CSV absent but findings contains operation analysis bundles (findings[<op>].output.analysis) — skip CSV summarization here. Instead project those analysis objects into the same compact totals / rules / failures intermediate representation Step 4 expects (mirror the cap spirit of --max-failures-per-rule 10; do not replay thousands of primitives), then proceed directly to Step 4 using the unified partial-report playbook.

Don't read the CSV into context directly. A real validator output is thousands of rows and pulling it inline wastes tokens and is fragile across quoting / encoding edge cases. Prefer the packaged summarizer when it is present, then parse its compact JSON. For the initial report, always pass --max-failures-per-rule 10 so a pathological asset (e.g. one rule with hundreds of unique-message failures) doesn't flood context. Re-run uncapped for the "show all failures" follow-up.

If tools/perf_validators/summarize_csv.py is missing, build a temporary stdlib-only fallback summarizer beside the artifact (for example <artifact_dir>/_summarize_validator_csv.py) and run that instead of reading the CSV. The fallback script is a local run artifact, not repository content, unless the user explicitly asks to add tooling. It must:

• Stream rows with Python's csv.DictReader; do not load the whole CSV into memory or print raw rows.
• Emit compact JSON matching the packaged summarizer (required top-level keys: totals, sorted rules, and capped grouped failures; see shape below).
• Normalize severity, rule, message, suggestion, and location fields defensively because usd-validation-nvidia column names vary by version.
• Optionally add sibling metadata keys report_path, report_bytes, and truncated (boolean) — these are not emitted by repo tools/perf_validators/summarize_csv.py, only useful for the ephemeral fallback when you want explicit provenance/size/truncation in the JSON blob.
• Cap examples to 10 locations per failure group for the initial report.

If the fallback cannot parse the CSV, report blocked_large_artifact with the CSV path, byte size, detected columns, and at most the first 10 lines. Do not paste the full artifact.

# POSIX — initial report
python3 tools/perf_validators/summarize_csv.py "<csv_path>" --max-failures-per-rule 10

# Windows (PowerShell) — initial report
py -3 tools\perf_validators\summarize_csv.py "<csv_path>" --max-failures-per-rule 10

The output is a single JSON object. Always emit the three core sections below (required for both the packaged script and any fallback summarizer):

{
  "totals": {
    "rows": 3690,
    "rules": 25,
    "by_severity": {"failure": 147, "warning": 3543},
    "by_family":   {"Usd Optimize": 3251, "base": 439},
    "failures_by_rule": {"MissingReferenceChecker": 80, ...}
  },
  "rules": [
    {"rule": "<Name>", "family": "Usd Optimize|base",
     "by_severity": {"failure": N, "warning": N, "error": N, "info": N},
     "affected_prims": <distinct location count>},
    ...
  ],
  "failures": [
    {"rule": "<Name>", "message": "<text>",
     "suggestion": "<text or empty>",
     "locations": ["<bare path or '(stage)'>", ...]},
    ...
  ]
}

Optional fallback-only top-level extensions (omit if redundant): report_path (normalized CSV path summarized), report_bytes (source size in bytes), and truncated (boolean — whether capped output omitted rows). Add these when they help explain a locally generated <artifact_dir>/_summarize_validator_csv.py; the packaged summarize_csv.py does not emit them by default.

Notes on what the summarizer does for you:

• Severity casing — already lowercased (CSV uses title case Warning/Failure, summary.json uses upper case WARNING/FAILED_CHECK; the summarizer collapses both to lowercase keys: warning, failure, error, info).
• Family classification — family is "Usd Optimize" for UsdOptimize* rules and "base" for everything else.
• Location normalization — strips Prim </…> / Stage </…> / Attribute (…) Prim </…> wrappers so locations contains bare paths. Empty / None cells become the literal string "(stage)". Lines that don't fit the wrapper format (e.g. layer-spec Sdf.Find('a', 'b')) are kept as-is.
• Failure grouping — failures is a flat list grouped by (rule, message, suggestion). Locations sharing the same message group collapse into one entry's locations array.
• Sort order — rules is sorted by max severity weight (failure > error

  warning > info) then by issue count descending.

If a summary.json is also available alongside the CSV, read its validate_secs / open_secs for the report header. Note: summary.json's total / by_rule are filtered to Usd Optimize rules only (perf_validators.py filters before writing summary). Always derive the real totals from the summarizer's totals section, not from summary.json.

Step 4 — Present the report

The report has three sections: header, summary table, and failure details. Always print all three (when failures exist). Use full column names — never abbreviate to single letters in user-facing output.

Header

File: <asset (basename)>
Source: replayed from <csv_path> (saved <csv_mtime>)        # or "fresh run"
Validate time: X.Xs (open Y.Ys)                             # if summary.json present

Summary: <N> failures, <N> warnings, <N> errors across <N> rules
         (base: <count>, UsdOptimize: <count>)

Partial-report / missing CSV: omit the CSV replay line unless a CSV existed; instead use Source: text that cites summary.json / artifact-directory replay (or asset.txt), e.g. analysis-derived from <summary.json> (sibling CSV missing; findings[op].output.analysis payload) — keep timing lines when the summary envelope exposes validate_secs / open_secs (Envelope B).

Summary table

Iterate the summarizer's rules array (already sorted). Omit rules with zero total issues (the summarizer doesn't emit them, so this is automatic). Use full column names:

| Rule | Family | Failures | Warnings | Errors | Affected prims | Fix tier | Operation |
|------|--------|----------|----------|--------|----------------|----------|-----------|
| ...  | Usd Optimize/base|    N     |    N     |   N    |       N        | T1/T2/T3 | <op> or — |

• Affected prims = affected_prims from the summarizer (distinct Location values; a single prim with multiple issues counts once).
• Fix tier and Operation come from the Rule reference below. For unknown rules, leave Fix tier blank and Operation ? — don't guess.

Failure details

Failures are the actionable signal — always expand them in the initial report. Iterate the (already-capped) failures array from the summarizer. For each rule with at least one failure, print:

**<RuleName>** — <N> failures

- <Message>
  Suggestion: <Suggestion>      # only if non-empty
    • `<location_or_(stage)>`
    • `<location_or_(stage)>`
    ...

The --max-failures-per-rule 10 flag in Step 3 already caps each rule at 10 total failure rows, so no further truncation is needed in this step. To detect when the cap dropped rows, sum the locations array lengths across the rule's groups (each group can contain multiple locations sharing one message) and compare to the unfiltered row count in totals.failures_by_rule[<rule>]. Don't compare group count vs row count — a single message affecting 3 prims is one group / 3 rows and would always falsely trigger.

shown_locs = sum(len(g["locations"]) for g in failures if g["rule"] == rule)
total_locs = totals["failures_by_rule"].get(rule, 0)
if shown_locs < total_locs:
    print(f'(+ {total_locs - shown_locs} more failures — '
          f'ask "show all {rule} failures" to see them)')

Do not expand warnings in the initial report; they're often in the hundreds-to-thousands and would bury the failures. Warnings are surfaced via the "Which prims are affected by …?" follow-up.

Headline takeaway

After the failure details, add a 1–2 sentence synthesis identifying the dominant pattern in the failures and the action that would resolve the most issues. This converts the long table into a clear next step. Examples:

The 147 failures are dominated by 138 missing-reference paths from a Windows export — fixable by re-flattening on a machine with the textures or rewriting absolute paths to relative ones.

86% of warnings come from UsdOptimizeEmptyLeafChecker and UsdOptimizeUnusedUVsChecker — pruneLeaves + removeUnusedUVs would clear most of them.

All 198 issues are base usd-validation-nvidia rules; 0 Usd Optimize issues fired because the asset has no UsdGeomMesh prims (mesh-only Usd Optimize rules short-circuit via REQUIRES_MESH — see validators/SKILL.md §Performance behavior). Six Usd Optimize hierarchy / materials / animation rules still ran and passed. The fix path is upstream (CAD export, references) rather than Usd Optimize.

Footer

You can ask follow-up questions like:
  - "Which prims are affected by <RuleName>?"
  - "How do I fix <RuleName>?" — I'll print concrete commands then.
  - "Show all <RuleName> failures" — expands the truncated list.
  - "Show me only base rules" / "only Usd Optimize rules"
  - "Re-run validation"

Don't print fix commands eagerly. Wait for the user to ask.

Step 5 — Follow-up questions

Use the parsed JSON in context. Don't re-run the validator unless asked.

The detailed playbook for each follow-up — exact summarizer invocations, T1/T2/T3/base fix-question response templates, "show all", per-prim filtering, family filters, "re-run", and "only check <Rule>" — lives in references/follow-ups.md. Read that file when answering any of these:

• "Which prims are affected by <RuleName>?" — --locations mode.
• "How do I fix <RuleName>?" — tier-aware response template.
• "Show all <RuleName> failures" — re-summarize uncapped.
• "Show me <RuleName> issues on <prim_path>" — --locations + substring filter.
• "Show me only base rules" / "only Usd Optimize rules" — family filter on Step 4.
• "Re-run validation" — hand off to the run-validators skill.
• "Only check <RuleName>" — explain there's no --rule flag; filter post-hoc.

---

Rule reference

The full Rule → backing op → tier table — for both UsdOptimize rules and base usd-validation-nvidia rules — lives in references/rule-reference.md. Read that file when populating the Fix tier and Operation columns of the Step 4 summary table, and when answering "How do I fix <RuleName>?" follow-ups in Step 5.

The reference covers:

• UsdOptimize rules — every UsdOptimize*Checker registered with its backing op and tier.
• Base usd-validation-nvidia rules — stage / metadata / external-reference rules with no Usd Optimize equivalent (T3 / manual), plus geometry rules that do map cleanly onto an Usd Optimize op (labelled T1-equiv / T2-equiv).

For rules not listed in the reference, treat as T3 / manual and surface the CSV Suggestion column verbatim. Don't invent fix commands.

---

Error handling

Symptom	Response
Summary JSON without sibling CSV and no usable top-level findings payloads	Artifact has rollups only (total / by_rule) — cannot rebuild Step 4 failure groups or prim lists. Ask the user to re-run run-validators (emit issues.csv or a summary that embeds findings[<op>].output.analysis).
User passes an asset with no saved run	"No saved validation found at <artifact_dir>. Run the run-validators skill on this asset first."
summarize_csv.py reports csv not found	The artifact dir is empty or the path is wrong. Re-run the run-validators skill, or check <artifact_dir>/ contents.
summarize_csv.py reports CSV missing required columns	The file is from a different tool. Show the first 10 lines and ask the user to confirm.
Summarizer succeeds but totals.rows == 0	"The validation completed with no issues — the asset passed every rule that ran."
User asks about a rule not in the summarizer output	"No issues were emitted for <RuleName> in this run."
User asks "how do I fix" a rule we don't recognise	Treat as base rule (T3 / manual); surface the Suggestion column from the CSV.

Purpose

Read the CSV / summary JSON artifacts produced by run-validators and present a structured, tier-classified report — header, summary table (per-rule severity counts + affected prims + fix tier + backing op), failure details, and a headline takeaway — without re-running the validator. Then answer follow-up questions ("which prims are affected by X?", "how do I fix Y?", "show all failures", base-only / Usd Optimize-only filters) from the parsed JSON in context.

Prerequisites

• A USD asset that has already been run through run-validators (or a CSV / summary JSON path the user supplies directly).
• A Python interpreter for the helper scripts (resolve_artifacts.py, summarize_csv.py) — pure stdlib, so any Python 3 works (no pxr required).
• The repo's tools/perf_validators/ directory accessible from the current working directory.

Limitations

• This skill is read-only. It never re-runs the validator; if the user asks for a fresh run, hand off to run-validators.
• It never executes fix operations. Fix commands are recommended via the Rule reference table; the user invokes run-operations to apply them.
• The CSV is the source of truth — summary.json's total / by_rule are filtered to Usd Optimize rules only. The skill always derives totals from the summarizer's totals section.
• The initial report caps each rule at 10 failure rows (--max-failures-per-rule 10) to keep context manageable. The "show all " follow-up re-runs uncapped.
• Warnings are not expanded in the initial report (often hundreds-to-thousands). Surface them via the "Which prims are affected by …?" follow-up.

Troubleshooting

The Error handling section above already covers the artifact-shape failure modes. Additional meta-troubleshooting:

Symptom	Likely cause	Fix
Summary numbers don't match summary.json totals	summary.json is Usd Optimize-filtered; the CSV is unfiltered.	Always derive totals from summarize_csv.py against the CSV — never read summary.json.total directly.
"Show all " output truncates again	Forgot to drop --max-failures-per-rule on the re-run.	Omit the flag; alternatively pass --limit 0.
Rule appears in CSV but not in the Step 4 table	Rule emitted only info / warning rows (no failure) and the user asked for failures only.	Re-render the table without severity filter; or use --locations to enumerate.
Fix tier shows ? for a rule	Rule isn't in references/rule-reference.md.	Treat as T3 / manual and surface the CSV Suggestion column verbatim. Don't guess.
User asks "fix everything"	Some rules are T3 / analysis-only and have no automated fix path.	Filter the recommended chain to T1 + T2; explain that T3 rules need DCC/manual review.