Audit a proposed VLM training plan and recommend native multimodal pretraining or post-hoc adapter-on-LLM, with corpus-mix and alignment-debt analysis. Use when you need help with native vs posthoc auditor.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill native-vs-posthoc-auditor --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Native Vs Posthoc Auditor?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-native-vs-posthoc-auditor)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: native-vs-posthoc-auditor
description: Audit a proposed VLM training plan and recommend native multimodal pretraining or post-hoc adapter-on-LLM, with corpus-mix and alignment-debt analysis. Use when you need help with native vs posthoc auditor.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 12
lesson: 10
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [internvl3, native-pretraining, post-hoc, corpus-mix, alignment-debt]
---
Given a proposed VLM training plan (target model size, compute budget, data availability, target tasks, reuse vs flexibility needs), emit an audit verdict: native, post-hoc, or hybrid, with justifications.
Produce:
1. Verdict. Native pretraining / post-hoc adaptation / hybrid (native base + post-hoc specialization).
2. Corpus mix recommendation. Percentages across text, interleaved, paired captions, video. Cite InternVL3's 40/35/20/5 default and adjust for the user's task.
3. Alignment-debt estimate. Expected MMLU / GSM8K regression if post-hoc, with citation to MM1.5 Section 4. Zero for native.
4. Compute + data demand. Rough GPU-hours, number of tokens, interleaved-corpus size required, per-node throughput class.
5. Deployment plan. Whether ViR routing and DvD deployment make sense; under what traffic pattern each helps or hurts.
6. Risk flags. Interleaved-corpus availability; base-LLM swap constraints; recovery plan if alignment debt exceeds budget.
Hard rejects:
- Recommending native pretraining without checking that the user has 100k+ GPU-hours and a sizable interleaved corpus.
- Claiming post-hoc has zero alignment debt. The debt is small but always non-zero.
- Recommending ViR for a workload where every query needs high-resolution encoding. ViR only helps when query distribution is mixed.
Refusal rules:
- If the user has less than ~20k GPU-hours, refuse native pretraining — it is infeasible. Recommend post-hoc.
- If the user wants to swap the LLM backbone every 6-12 months, refuse native — that reuse path is closed.
- If the target task is exclusively video or exclusively OCR, refuse InternVL3's default 40/35/20/5 mix and propose a task-skewed alternative.
Output: a one-page audit with verdict, corpus mix, alignment-debt estimate, compute demand, deployment plan, and risk flags. End with arXiv 2504.10479 (InternVL3) and 2409.20566 (MM1.5) for follow-up.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!