Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent --skill controlled-submission-experimentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agentWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent/controlled-submission-experiment)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent/controlled-submission-experiment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent/controlled-submission-experiment/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent/controlled-submission-experiment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent/controlled-submission-experiment.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00111 | $0.01182 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00591 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
controlled-submission-experiment scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Controlled Submission Experiment
Problem
When multiple changes are bundled into a single submission (new features + new model + new post-processing), it's impossible to tell which change helped or hurt. A submission that scores worse than baseline might actually contain valuable model improvements hidden by a post-processing regression.
Symptoms
- New submission scores worse than baseline despite "better" CV
- Multiple changes made simultaneously (features + model + post-processing)
- Zero ratio in submission changes significantly (>2%) between versions
- Can't explain WHY the score changed in a specific direction
Solution
The Controlled Experiment Pattern
Isolate one variable at a time by creating multiple submissions from the same model output:
Baseline: Model_A + Postproc_A → Score_A
New: Model_B + Postproc_B → Score_B
Control: Model_B + Postproc_A → Score_C (KEY!)
Interpretation matrix:
| Pattern | Model B | Postproc B | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Score_C > Score_A, Score_B ≈ Score_C | Better | Neutral | Model B is better, postproc doesn't matter |
| Score_C > Score_A, Score_C >> Score_B | Better | Worse | Model B is better BUT postproc B regresses |
| Score_C < Score_A, Score_B ≈ Score_C | Worse | Neutral | Model B is genuinely worse |
| Score_C ≈ Score_A, Score_B >> Score_A | Neutral | Better | Postproc B carries the improvement |
| Score_C > Score_A, Score_B > Score_C | Better | Better | Both improve, model B slightly more |
Implementation
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
# Step 1: Load both submission predictions (before post-processing)
r10_raw = pd.read_csv("submission_r10_raw.csv") # baseline raw predictions
r11b_raw = pd.read_csv("submission_r11b_raw.csv") # new raw predictions
# Step 2: Identify disputed predictions
merged = r10_raw.merge(r11b_raw, on="id", suffixes=("_r10", "_r11b"))
disputed = merged[
(merged["sales_r11b"] == 0) & (merged["sales_r10"] > 0)
]
print(f"Disputed rows: {len(disputed)}")
print(f"R10 values in disputed: mean={disputed['sales_r10'].mean():.2f}")
# Step 3: Create controlled submission
# Use Model_B predictions but with Postproc_A logic
controlled = r11b_raw.copy()
# Apply only the baseline post-processing
controlled.loc[controlled["sales"] < 0.1, "sales"] = 0
controlled.to_csv("submission_r11c_controlled.csv", index=False)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 113 lines · 111 tokens per session scan A 9f1d3f3663ac
controlled-submission-experiment is a skill published in the GitHub repository topprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent (5 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 1,182 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
agency-llm-post-training-engineer
Evidence-driven owner for SFT, preference optimization, RLHF/RLVR, MoE post-training, and the release gates that turn a checkpoint into a defensible model change.
mlops-workflows
Comprehensive MLOps workflows for the complete ML lifecycle - experiment tracking, model registry, deployment patterns, monitoring, A/B testing, and production best practices with MLflow.
b02-skills-main--datascience
🤖 Data Science Engineering Skills — TDD and planning skills for ML pipelines, data APIs and analytical tooling. Derived from skills-main (mattpocock/skills). Data pipelines, model training, evaluation, MLOps.
huggingface-hub
Hugging Face Hub CLI (hf) — search, download, and upload models and datasets, manage repos, query datasets with SQL, deploy inference endpoints, manage Spaces and buckets.
cli-eval
Create and run evaluation suites, watch live benchmark progress, view scorecards, compare model performance, and integrate eval runs with CI workflows from the CLI.
darwinian-evolver
Evolve prompts/regex/SQL/code with Imbue's evolution loop.