SKILL.md
Ablation Planner
Systematically design ablation studies that answer the questions reviewers will ask. Codex leads the design (reviewer perspective), CC reviews feasibility and implements.
Context: $ARGUMENTS
When to Use
- Main results pass
/result-to-claimwith claim_supported = yes or partial - User explicitly requests ablation planning
/auto-review-loopreviewer 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: Codex Designs Ablations
mcp__codex__codex:
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
