원클릭으로
solve-bridge
Workflow 1.5: 从求解计划到代码实现的桥梁。读取 SOLVE_PLAN.md,实现求解代码,本地执行,收集初始结果。当用户说'实现求解'、'写代码'、'bridge'、'从计划到求解'时使用。
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
메뉴
Workflow 1.5: 从求解计划到代码实现的桥梁。读取 SOLVE_PLAN.md,实现求解代码,本地执行,收集初始结果。当用户说'实现求解'、'写代码'、'bridge'、'从计划到求解'时使用。
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
数据清洗、EDA、缺失值处理、异常值检测、相关性分析。触发词: 数据预处理、数据清洗、EDA、缺失值、异常值、data preprocessing、数据探索。
模型验证:交叉验证、留出法、残差分析、与已知解对比、假设检验。触发词: 模型验证、交叉验证、残差分析、model validation、留出法、误差分析、假设检验。
多子问题拆解与依赖分析。触发词: 子问题拆解、拆题、problem decomposition、依赖关系、求解顺序、时间分配、并行安排。
灵敏度分析:参数扰动、单因素/多因素分析、Monte Carlo 模拟、龙卷风图/蛛网图。触发词: 灵敏度分析、参数敏感性、sensitivity analysis、Monte Carlo、鲁棒性测试、参数扰动。
自动多轮评审优化循环。通过 Codex MCP 反复评审→修改→重新评审,直到达标或达到最大轮数。当用户说'自动优化循环'、'auto optimize'、'评审到通过'时使用。
Autonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-5.4 xhigh review → implement fixes → recompile, for 2 rounds. Use when user says "改论文", "improve paper", "论文润色循环", "auto improve", or wants to iteratively polish a generated paper.
| name | solve-bridge |
| description | Workflow 1.5: 从求解计划到代码实现的桥梁。读取 SOLVE_PLAN.md,实现求解代码,本地执行,收集初始结果。当用户说'实现求解'、'写代码'、'bridge'、'从计划到求解'时使用。 |
| argument-hint | ["solve-plan-path-or-topic"] |
| allowed-tools | Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply |
Implement and deploy experiments from plan: $ARGUMENTS
This skill bridges Workflow 1 (idea discovery + method refinement) and Workflow 2 (auto review loop). It takes the experiment plan and turns it into running experiments with initial results.
Workflow 1 output: This skill: Workflow 2 input:
refine-logs/SOLVE_PLAN.md → implement → GPT-5.4 review → deploy → collect → initial results ready
refine-logs/SOLVE_TRACKER.md code (cross-model) /run-solver for /auto-optimize-loop
refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md
false to skip.false to manually inspect code before deploying.false (default), write code from scratch or reuse existing project files.true, (1) read MODEL_CANDIDATES.md instead of full MODEL_REPORT.md if available, (2) append experiment results to EXPERIMENT_LOG.md after collection.Override:
/solve-bridge "SOLVE_PLAN.md" — compact: true, base repo: https://github.com/org/project
This skill expects one or more of:
refine-logs/SOLVE_PLAN.md (best) — claim-driven experiment roadmap from /solve-planrefine-logs/SOLVE_TRACKER.md — run-by-run execution tablerefine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md — method description for implementation contextMODEL_CANDIDATES.md — compact idea summary (preferred when COMPACT: true)MODEL_REPORT.md — full brainstorm output (fallback)If none exist, ask the user what experiments to implement.
Read SOLVE_PLAN.md and extract:
FINAL_PROPOSAL.md — what exactly to implementPresent a brief summary:
📋 Experiment plan loaded:
- Milestones: [N] (sanity → baseline → main → 灵敏度分析)
- Must-run experiments: [N]
- Nice-to-have: [N]
- Estimated compute-minutes: [X]
Proceeding to implementation.
If BASE_REPO is set — clone the repo first:
git clone <BASE_REPO> base_repo/
# Read the repo's README, understand its structure, find entry points
# Implement experiments by modifying/extending this codebase
For each milestone (in order), write the experiment scripts:
Check existing code — scan the project (or cloned base_repo/) for existing experiment scripts, model code, data loaders. Reuse as much as possible.
Implement missing pieces:
Follow the plan's run order — implement sanity-stage experiments first, then baselines, then main method, then 灵敏度分析s.
Self-review before deploying:
Skip this step if CODE_REVIEW is false.
Before deploying, send the experiment code to GPT-5.4 xhigh for review:
mcp__codex__codex:
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
prompt: |
Review the following experiment implementation for correctness.
## Experiment Plan:
[paste key sections from SOLVE_PLAN.md]
## Method Description:
[paste from FINAL_PROPOSAL.md]
## Implementation:
[paste the experiment scripts]
Check for:
1. Does the code correctly implement the method described in the proposal?
2. Are all hyperparameters from the plan reflected in the code?
3. Are there any logic bugs (wrong loss function, incorrect data split, missing eval)?
4. Is the evaluation metric computed correctly?
5. **CRITICAL: Does evaluation use the dataset's actual ground truth labels — NOT another model's output as ground truth?** This is a common and severe bug.
6. Any potential issues (OOM risk, numerical instability, missing seeds)?
For each issue found, specify: CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR and the exact fix.
On review results:
Before deploying the full experiment suite, run the sanity-stage experiment:
/run-solver [sanity experiment command]
Wait for completion. Verify:
If sanity fails → fix the code, re-run. Do not proceed to full deployment with broken code.
Deploy experiments following the plan's milestone order:
/run-solver [experiment commands]
For each milestone:
/monitor-solver to track progress🚦 Checkpoint (if AUTO_DEPLOY = false):
🔧 Code implementation complete. Ready to deploy:
Milestone 0 (sanity): [status — passed/pending]
Milestone 1 (baseline): [N experiments, ~X compute-minutes]
Milestone 2 (main method): [N experiments, ~X compute-minutes]
Milestone 3 (灵敏度分析s): [N experiments, ~X compute-minutes]
Total estimated: ~X compute-minutes on [N] GPUs
Deploy now? Or review the code first?
As experiments complete:
wandb: true and wandb_project), invoke /training-check to detect NaN, loss divergence, plateaus, or overfitting. If W&B is not configured, skip silently.refine-logs/SOLVE_TRACKER.md — fill in Status and Notes columns# Initial Experiment Results
**Date**: [today]
**Plan**: refine-logs/SOLVE_PLAN.md
## Results by Milestone
### M0: Sanity — PASSED
- [result]
### M1: Baselines
| Run | System | Key Metric | Status |
|-----|--------|-----------|--------|
| R001 | baseline_1 | X.XX | DONE |
### M2: Main Method
| Run | System | Key Metric | Status |
|-----|--------|-----------|--------|
| R003 | our_method | X.XX | DONE |
### M3: Ablations
...
## Summary
- [X/Y] must-run experiments completed
- Main result: [positive/negative/inconclusive]
- Ready for /auto-optimize-loop: [YES/NO]
## Next Step
→ /auto-optimize-loop "[topic]"
Skip entirely if COMPACT is false.
Append each completed experiment to EXPERIMENT_LOG.md:
## [Run ID] — [timestamp]
- **System**: [method name]
- **Config**: [key hyperparameters]
- **Result**: [primary metric = X.XX]
- **Verdict**: [positive / negative / inconclusive]
- **Reproduce**: `python train.py --config configs/run_id.yaml --seed 42`
This structured log survives session recovery — downstream skills read it instead of parsing screen output.
After main experiments (M2) complete with positive results, invoke /灵敏度分析-planner to design 灵敏度分析 studies:
refine-logs/SOLVE_PLAN.md and refine-logs/SOLVE_TRACKER.mdIf /灵敏度分析-planner is not available, skip silently — the existing SOLVE_PLAN.md 灵敏度分析 blocks (if any) remain unchanged.
Present final status:
🔬 Experiment bridge complete:
- Implemented: [N] experiment scripts
- Deployed: [N] experiments on [M] GPUs
- Completed: [X/Y] must-run, [A/B] nice-to-have
- Main result: [one sentence]
Results: refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_RESULTS.md
Tracker: refine-logs/SOLVE_TRACKER.md
Ready for Workflow 2:
→ /auto-optimize-loop "[topic]"
cat << 'EOF' > file) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.SOLVE_TRACKER.md should reflect real status after each run completes./modeling-discovery "direction" ← Workflow 1: find + refine + plan
/solve-bridge ← you are here (Workflow 1.5: implement + deploy)
/auto-optimize-loop "topic" ← Workflow 2: review + iterate
/paper-writing "MODELING_NARRATIVE.md" ← Workflow 3: write the paper
Or use /mathmodel-pipeline for the full end-to-end flow (includes this bridge).