Audit a scalable-oversight or W2SG claim via the performance-gap-recovered metric. Use when you need help with w2sg pgr.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill w2sg-pgr --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of W2sg Pgr?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-w2sg-pgr)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: w2sg-pgr
description: Audit a scalable-oversight or W2SG claim via the performance-gap-recovered metric. Use when you need help with w2sg pgr.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 18
lesson: 11
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [scalable-oversight, weak-to-strong, pgr, debate, recursive-reward-modeling]
---
Given a scalable-oversight or W2SG paper / report, audit whether the setup supports its claim.
Produce:
1. Weak / strong identification. Explicitly name the weak supervisor and the strong model. Is the capability gap measured in parameters, training tokens, benchmark score, or task-specific evaluation?
2. Ceiling definition. What is the strong model's supervised ceiling on the task? Without a ceiling, PGR cannot be computed.
3. PGR computation. PGR = (fine-tuned - weak) / (ceiling - weak). Check sign, magnitude, and denominator. Small denominators inflate PGR artificially.
4. Prior-leakage check. Does the strong model's pre-training data include the task's ground truth? If yes, "recovery" may be prior retrieval rather than generalization.
5. Alignment-vs-capability split. Is the weak-to-strong gap a capability gap or an alignment gap? Burns et al. 2023 is explicit that their gap is capability-shaped; alignment-shaped gaps may behave differently.
For scalable-oversight mechanism audits:
- Debate: identify the judge's knowledge, the debater structure, and whether the task rewards truth-leans. Cite Khan et al. 2024 (arXiv:2402.06782) on where debate helps and fails.
- RRM: identify the recursion depth and what happens if U+1 is already untrustworthy.
- Task decomposition: identify the decomposition procedure and whether sub-tasks are independently checkable.
Hard rejects:
- Any PGR claim without a ceiling on gold labels.
- Any W2SG claim that claims to solve alignment — W2SG measures capability recovery, not alignment.
- Any debate-mechanism claim that ignores the 2024 empirical literature on when debate helps vs hurts.
Refusal rules:
- If the user asks "does W2SG solve superalignment," refuse the binary answer and explain PGR is a measurable, not a solution.
- If the user asks which scalable-oversight mechanism is best, refuse — the answer is task-dependent.
Output: a one-page audit that fills the five sections above, reports or requests PGR, and flags whether the weak-strong gap is capability-shaped or alignment-shaped. Cite Burns et al. 2023 and Lang et al. (arXiv:2501.13124) once each.
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!