本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

dataset-systematic-error-hunter

当一份实验数据可能藏着仪器或环境偏差时使用。扫描漂移、温度依赖、非线性、滞回、重复不一致这几类系统误差特征,再把每一类归因到一个具体的物理过程(热学、电子学、机械),而不是一句「数据有问题」。相关不等于因果——脚本给的是线索,归因要另找证据。

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md8.0 KB
  • scripts/hunt_systematics.py20.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Dataset Systematic Error Hunter

Find structured error in raw experimental data and turn each suspicious pattern into a testable physical hypothesis. Do not merely say “the data has a problem,” and do not treat a trend as proof of its cause.

Inputs

Ask only for missing information that changes the audit:

  • raw tabular data, preferably CSV;
  • response/measurement column;
  • time or acquisition-order column;
  • controlled parameter columns;
  • environmental columns such as temperature or supply voltage;
  • repeat/run identifier, if measurements were repeated;
  • apparatus notes, calibration events, units, and expected model, if known.

Preserve the original data. Never silently delete points, reorder acquisition sequence, or fill missing values.

Workflow

1. Establish provenance and structure

Record the source, acquisition order, units, missing-value markers, calibration events, and any preprocessing already applied. Distinguish measured columns from derived columns. Mark absent facts as unknown; do not infer them from column names alone.

2. Form a baseline expectation

State what the response should look like under the intended model. If no trusted model exists, use only transparent local summaries or replicate comparisons as a baseline and label them exploratory. Keep model mismatch separate from measurement-system bias.

3. Scan deterministic signatures

When local execution is available, run:

python3 scripts/hunt_systematics.py data.csv \
  --response measured_value \
  --time elapsed_s \
  --temperature temperature_C \
  --parameter control_value \
  --group run_id \
  --output systematic_scan.json

Use only flags supported by the local script. The script reports descriptive signals, not causal conclusions:

  • response trend versus time or acquisition order;
  • response association with temperature and controlled parameters;
  • first-versus-last segment drift;
  • linear versus quadratic fit improvement as a nonlinearity clue;
  • between-repeat mean spread and within-repeat scatter.

The fits are computed on the predictor after centering and scaling it, so Unix epoch seconds or SI-small values (wavelengths in metres) give the same fit and SSE reduction as elapsed seconds. --time accepts plain numbers or ISO 8601 timestamps (2026-09-01T10:00:00, optionally with Z or an offset); timestamps become seconds since the earliest one. Each pair scan reports n, dropped_rows and warnings (unreadable rows, or why a fit is unavailable); carry dropped rows into Audit coverage and limitations. A missing column, an unreadable file, or a requested column with no usable rows exits with code 2 and an error: line instead of a report; exit code 0 means the report was written. --selftest runs the script's regression cases.

If tools cannot be run, perform the same checks explicitly and label numerical results unverified.

4. Inspect residual structure

If an expected model is available, compute residuals as observed - expected and repeat the scans on residuals. Inspect residuals against:

  • time/order: warm-up, aging, creep, battery or zero drift;
  • temperature: thermal expansion, resistance change, viscosity change, sensor thermal coefficient;
  • control parameter: saturation, dead zone, calibration nonlinearity, omitted mechanism;
  • direction of parameter sweep: backlash, hysteresis, memory;
  • run or repeat: re-zeroing, repositioning, operator or setup dependence.

Never call raw response-versus-parameter correlation an error when it may be the intended physical signal.

5. Build a mechanism ledger

For every suspicious signature, provide:

  1. Observation — the numerical or graphical pattern, with units.
  2. Candidate physical process — thermal, electronic, mechanical, optical, fluid, timing, or procedural.
  3. Linking mechanism — the causal chain from process to measured bias.
  4. Alternative explanation — at least one plausible competitor.
  5. Discriminating check — a concrete intervention or measurement that separates them.
  6. Expected fingerprint — what should change, and in which direction, if the mechanism is real.
  7. Confidence — signal detected, mechanism plausible, or mechanism supported.

Reserve mechanism supported for evidence from an intervention, independent sensor, calibration, or reproducible prediction—not correlation alone.

6. Recommend the cheapest decisive follow-up

Prioritize controls that isolate one mechanism at a time: randomize acquisition order, run an up/down sweep, log temperature independently, insert reference standards, repeat after warm-up, rotate/reseat the apparatus, or blind the operator. State what result would falsify each hypothesis.

Output contract

Return these sections in order:

  1. Data and provenance
  2. Audit coverage and limitations
  3. Detected signatures — include effect size, units, sample count, and affected range
  4. Mechanism ledger
  5. Priority follow-up tests
  6. Safe correction status

For correction status, use exactly one:

  • Do not correct yet — cause unresolved
  • Correct with documented calibration model
  • Exclude only by predeclared rule

Never remove outliers merely because they weaken a trend. Never subtract a fitted drift unless the drift mechanism and calibration procedure are independently justified. Keep raw, corrected, and excluded data separately traceable.

Boundaries

  • This skill diagnoses systematic-error signatures; it does not replace uncertainty propagation or general model-fit auditing.
  • Use model-fit-auditor for residual adequacy, leverage, influence, or model selection as the primary question.
  • Use uncertainty-propagator after a defensible measurement model has been established.
  • Do not invent apparatus details, units, uncertainty, calibration history, or physical causes.
  • Do not claim statistical independence when samples are time ordered or grouped.
  • Small datasets may support a warning or follow-up design, but not a confident mechanism claim.

Failure modes

  • Correlation called causation: downgrade to a candidate mechanism and propose an intervention.
  • Intended signal called bias: scan model residuals rather than raw response.
  • Acquisition order discarded: restore original order before drift checks.
  • Many scans, one dramatic result: report all scans performed and treat weak findings as exploratory.
  • Automatic correction: stop and preserve the unmodified source data.

References

  • scripts/hunt_systematics.py — deterministic signature scan (step 3)
  • ../_shared/physics-evidence-contract.md — §4 academic-integrity boundary shared by all physics skills (no invented apparatus details or data)

变更记录 / Changelog

版本日期变更类型
0.1.12026-09-26脚本的线性与二次拟合改在中心化、缩放后的自变量上求解,Unix 时间戳不再给出负的 SSE 降幅、SI 小量不再返回 null;时间列支持 ISO 8601;逐项报告 dropped_rows 与原因,某列没有可用行时以退出码 2 报错而不是 n=0 照常退出;加 --selftest;Boundaries 两处泛称改为点名 model-fit-auditor、uncertainty-propagator;补 _shared 证据契约 §4 引用;示例命令改用 python3(macOS 自带的只有 python3)patch
0.1.02026-09-05初始版本minor

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

当学生说"Common App 活动栏写不下"、"这段活动描述超字数了"、"帮我把这几条压到限制内"时使用。先按官方申请表核对当季字符限额,再逐条检查;一次把所有条目量完并直接给出压缩版,只在需要砍掉实质内容时才用选择题问该保哪部分。每改一版都用工具重新数一遍字符,绝不凭感觉说"这样应该够了"。只压缩,不代写空白。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当学生说"我参加过一些活动但没整理过"、"帮我把经历录进去"、"我的活动档案是空的"时使用。让学生一口气把记得的活动说出来,直接把这段话拆成结构化的长期事项(角色、组织、起止时间、做了什么、结果、级别),说不清的字段留空标"待补"而不是编,再用一张选择题卡把级别判定与是否重复这类关键项一次问完,然后提案入库。只记录学生真正说出口的内容,级别按事实判定,绝不往高了写。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当学生问"招生官会怎么看我的档案"、"我的背景还差什么"、"帮我评估一下现在的申请竞争力"时使用。以顶尖大学招生官的视角通读学生的档案、长期活动与已写下的反思,不问任何前置问题直接产出一份指名道姓的坦诚点评:这份材料的亮点、招生官真实的解读方式、明显的短板与空白、以及接下来最值得做的一到两件事。只读不写,不修改学生的任何数据,也不代写任何申请材料。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当使用者说"帮我填词"、"按这个字数模板写歌词"、"用多Agent对抗式写词"、"这首副歌帮我想几句"时使用,前提是字数骨架和这首歌写什么都已经有了;只有主题、还没定写什么时先用 lyric-concept-builder。拿一份字数骨架和意象系统,派三个 sonnet 子代理按不同路子并行独立起草(场景派 / 口语派 / 意象派),再派一个红队子代理逐句挑毛病,主 Agent 按句裁决拼稿,最后统一辙口与意象。收敛判据卡死:字数用 lyric-doctor 的脚本对模板数、每段同辙、hook 不含陈词、主歌二对主歌一有推进。不抄现有歌词,不替使用者决定这首歌要说什么。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当想知道一段 AI 回答"哪些能直接用、哪些必须先验证、哪些只能当建议"时使用。按声明类型分四级——低风险草稿材料、观点与策略建议、可查证的事实声明、会改变状态的可执行指令——每级配一句默认处置动作;再按影响半径排序,给出最小的下一步检查。可执行类一律标"不能直接执行;先做代码审阅/沙箱测试/回滚准备",其中破坏性或提权的命令排在最前。教的是一套可复用的复查习惯,不是替使用者把所有内容都核实一遍:本 skill 只分级、排序、定处置,要逐条核实走 ai-output-fact-checker,整段代码要做入库体检走 ai-code-onboarding-checklist。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当拿到一段 AI 生成的代码,还没决定要不要信、要不要跑、要不要往上继续加东西时使用。先做一遍客观体检:行数与嵌套深度、有没有测试、有没有硬编码密钥或遗留 TODO、依赖是不是真实存在、有没有危险调用(eval/exec、shell=True、递归删除、反序列化、提权、外发网络,按正文给的 grep 模式逐类查);再给风险评级和下一步动作。老实写明它查不了算法正确性——体检通过不等于代码是对的。回答里文字、事实和代码混在一起时先用 ai-answer-triage 分级;只审相对已有代码的一份改动用 ai-diff-review-protocol。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

ChromiteCr のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する