Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/KYRIE66nb/codex-omx-public-config --skill training-check명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SKILL.md 표시 중
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | training-check |
| description | Monitor WandB training health. |
| allowed-tools | Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Agent |
Periodically read WandB metrics during training to catch problems early. Do not wait until training finishes to discover it was a waste of GPU time.
entity/project/run_id.gpt-5.4 - Used via a secondary Codex agent for ambiguous cases only.import wandb
api = wandb.Api()
run = api.run("<entity>/<project>/<run_id>")
history = run.history()
If WandB is unreachable (API error, network issue), fall back to reading the log file directly via SSH:
ssh server "tail -100 /path/to/training.log"
Check these signals:
| Signal | Judgment | Action |
|---|---|---|
| NaN/Inf in loss | Clearly bad | Stop training, investigate |
| Loss diverging (increasing for >N steps) | Clearly bad | Stop training, investigate |
| Eval metrics significantly worse than baseline | Clearly bad | Stop training, investigate |
| Loss decreasing, metrics improving | Clearly fine | Continue, increase check interval |
| Loss flat but not diverging | Unsure | -> Step 3 (secondary review) |
| Metrics noisy, can't tell trend | Unsure | -> Step 3 (secondary review) |
| Slightly worse than baseline but still early | Unsure | -> Step 3 (secondary review) |
Only escalate when the signal is ambiguous. For clearly good or clearly bad signals, act directly.
spawn_agent:
model: REVIEWER_MODEL
reasoning_effort: high
message: |
TRAINING HEALTH CHECK - need your judgment on ambiguous metrics.
Run: <entity>/<project>/<run_id>
Current epoch/step: X / Y total
Training loss (last 10 checkpoints): [values]
Eval metrics (last 3 evals): [values]
Baseline reference: [numbers from paper/reproduction]
What I'm unsure about: [specific concern]
Please respond with exactly one of:
- STOP: clearly problematic, should kill training
- CONTINUE: looks fine, check again next interval
- WAIT: not enough data to judge, check again sooner
If delegation is unavailable, make a local judgment using the same rubric and mark the decision [pending external review]. In ambiguous cases with no hard failure, prefer WAIT over STOP.
| Decision | Action |
|---|---|
| Stop | Kill the training session. Save the WandB run URL, key metrics, and reason for stopping. Log to project notes for debugging. |
| Continue | Do nothing. Re-run at the next interval (increase interval if consistently healthy). |
| Wait | Do nothing but keep the current short interval (do not increase). |
training-check and watchdog-style monitoring operate at different levels:
| Layer | Tool | What it checks | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process health | watchdog | Session alive? GPU active? | Every 60s (continuous) |
| Training quality | training-check | Loss trend? Metrics improving? | Every 10-60 min (periodic) |
Use both together:
training-check catches subtle quality issues (loss plateau, metric degradation)After training is confirmed stable:
Create a recurring job (cron, task scheduler, tmux loop, etc.)
that runs `/training-check <entity>/<project>/<run_id>` every 10 minutes.
As the check interval increases, update the old recurring job to match the new interval.