ablation-planner

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. Codex designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective, CC reviews feasibility and implements.
argument-hint	["method-description-or-claim"]

Web-side execution adapter

• This skill is workflow guidance for the ChatGPT web-side connector.
• Loading this SKILL.md is only the setup step; it does not mean the task is complete.
• After loading, continue to execute the workflow, constraints, and output format below before answering.
• Mentions of local automation, local file operations, local command execution, or external integrations are descriptive only. Use capabilities available in the current ChatGPT session, or ask the user for needed files/links.
• For literature search, current facts, factual verification, source tracing, numeric values, material properties, legal/medical/financial/current information, or any evidence-heavy claim: use available search/browsing tools first and cite verifiable sources. Do not answer such tasks only from memory.
• Preserve the original workflow and scope unless the user explicitly asks for changes.

Ablation Planner

Systematically design ablation studies that answer the questions reviewers will ask. local coding assistant 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 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: local coding assistant Designs Ablations

local coding assistant integration:
  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 local coding assistant response into structured format:

## 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 local coding assistant 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

• local coding assistant leads the design. CC does not pre-filter or bias the ablation list before local coding assistant sees it. local coding assistant 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 local coding assistant to re-prioritize — don't 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).