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 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.00473 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
- 1mo 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 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 1,182 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
bad-case-to-dpo
A guide to turning failed production agent runs into training and evaluation data. It explains how to find the first mistake, create preference examples for DPO (Direct Preference Optimization), and check that a fix does not damage other tasks.
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.