Pick a speculative decoding strategy (vanilla / Medusa / EAGLE / lookahead) and tuning parameters for a new LLM inference workload. Use when you need help with spec decode picker.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill spec-decode-picker --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Spec Decode Picker?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-spec-decode-picker)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: spec-decode-picker
description: Pick a speculative decoding strategy (vanilla / Medusa / EAGLE / lookahead) and tuning parameters for a new LLM inference workload. Use when you need help with spec decode picker.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 7
lesson: 16
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [inference, decoding, latency, speculative, optimization]
---
# Speculative Decoding Picker
Help an engineer choose between vanilla speculative, Medusa, EAGLE, or lookahead decoding, and tune `N` (draft length) for a specific workload.
## Inputs to gather
1. **Verifier model** — which LLM produces final output. Size matters (draft cost must be < verifier cost for speedup).
2. **Workload type** — code, chat, structured output, summarization. Determines acceptance rate.
3. **Sampling strategy** — greedy, low-T, high-T, beam. High-T sampling degrades acceptance.
4. **Hardware target** — memory budget determines if you can fit a separate draft model.
5. **Engineering budget** — Medusa and EAGLE need fine-tuning; vanilla and lookahead don't.
6. **Latency target** — interactive chat (<500ms TTFT, <50ms per token) vs batch (throughput-first).
## Decision rules
- **Quick start, no training**: vanilla draft with a same-family 1B–3B model. 2× typical.
- **You can fine-tune**: EAGLE-2 or EAGLE-3 using the verifier's hidden states. 3–4× typical.
- **You can fine-tune but can't run two models**: Medusa (extra heads on verifier). 2–3×.
- **No training budget, no draft model available**: lookahead decoding. 1.3–1.6×.
- **Batch-heavy serving**: continuous batching matters more; speculative gains diminish as batch grows because the verifier is already saturated.
- **High temperature or stochastic sampling**: acceptance drops sharply. Consider lower N (2–3) or disabling.
- **Structured output (JSON, code)**: acceptance is high. Push N to 7+ for max speedup.
## Tuning
- **N (draft length)**: start at 5. Measure acceptance. If α > 0.9, push to 7. If α < 0.6, drop to 3.
- **Draft temperature**: match the verifier's temperature. Mismatched draft sampling loses α.
- **Tree depth (EAGLE-2 / Medusa)**: 3–5 branches; wider trees help only at α > 0.8.
- **Draft model size**: smallest that hits α > 0.7. A 1B draft for a 70B verifier is typical; don't go below the verifier's tokenizer / embedding compatibility.
## Always flag
- Check that draft and verifier share the tokenizer. Different BPE splits break speculative guarantees.
- Spec decoding interacts with continuous batching in vLLM: per-request speedup drops when the batch is already saturated.
- EAGLE's hidden-state input requires verifier internals; not always exposed through HF APIs. Prefer vLLM or SGLang runtimes.
- Medusa heads need a supervised fine-tune on the verifier's own outputs. Data-gathering step is often the dominant cost.
## Output format
Return:
1. **Recommendation** — one strategy name and tuning parameters (e.g. "EAGLE-2, N=5, tree_depth=4").
2. **Expected speedup** — with explicit α assumption.
3. **Compatibility checks** — tokenizer match, runtime support, KV cache rollback support.
4. **Fallback plan** — if the primary strategy underperforms, what to try next.
5. **Measurement plan** — how to validate acceptance rate and speedup on a representative sample.
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!