Use when performing ml model code review — mL/AI code review template covering data leakage detection, model reproducibility, bias assessment, feature engineering validation, and experiment tracking. Provides a systematic review framework for machine learning pipelines, model training code, and inference service changes.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add cloudthinker-ai/CloudSkills --skill ml-model-code-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ml Model Code Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cloudthinker-ai-ml-model-code-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ml-model-code-review
enabled: true
description: |
Use when performing ml model code review — mL/AI code review template covering
data leakage detection, model reproducibility, bias assessment, feature
engineering validation, and experiment tracking. Provides a systematic review
framework for machine learning pipelines, model training code, and inference
service changes.
required_connections:
- prefix: github
label: "GitHub"
config_fields:
- key: repository
label: "Repository"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., org/ml-pipeline"
- key: pr_number
label: "PR Number"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., 1234"
- key: model_type
label: "Model Type"
required: false
placeholder: "e.g., classification, NLP, computer vision, recommendation"
features:
- CODE_REVIEW
---
# ML Model Code Review Skill
Review ML PR **#{{ pr_number }}** in **{{ repository }}** for **{{ model_type }}** model.
## Workflow
### Phase 1 — Data Leakage
```
DATA LEAKAGE CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Train/test split:
[ ] Data split before any preprocessing
[ ] No information from test set in training
[ ] Temporal splits for time-series data
[ ] Group-aware splits (same entity not in both sets)
[ ] Feature leakage:
[ ] No target-derived features
[ ] No future data used in features
[ ] No features unavailable at inference time
[ ] Label encoding fit only on training data
[ ] Preprocessing leakage:
[ ] Scalers/normalizers fit only on training data
[ ] Imputation values from training data only
[ ] Feature selection based on training data only
```
### Phase 2 — Reproducibility
```
REPRODUCIBILITY CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Random seeds:
[ ] Random seeds set for all stochastic operations
[ ] Seeds documented and versioned
[ ] Deterministic mode enabled where possible
[ ] Experiment tracking:
[ ] Hyperparameters logged (MLflow, W&B, etc.)
[ ] Training metrics tracked
[ ] Model artifacts versioned
[ ] Data version recorded (DVC, dataset hash)
[ ] Environment:
[ ] Dependencies pinned (requirements.txt / conda.yml)
[ ] GPU/CUDA version documented
[ ] Docker image versioned for training environment
```
### Phase 3 — Bias and Fairness
```
BIAS ASSESSMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Data bias:
[ ] Training data representative of target population
[ ] Class imbalance addressed (oversampling, weights)
[ ] Protected attributes identified
[ ] Demographic parity evaluated
[ ] Model bias:
[ ] Performance metrics computed per subgroup
[ ] Disparate impact ratio calculated
[ ] Fairness constraints applied if needed
[ ] Bias mitigation documented
[ ] Documentation:
[ ] Model card created/updated
[ ] Known limitations documented
[ ] Intended use cases specified
```
### Phase 4 — Model Quality
```
MODEL QUALITY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Evaluation:
[ ] Appropriate metrics for task (not just accuracy)
[ ] Evaluation on held-out test set
[ ] Cross-validation where appropriate
[ ] Baseline comparison provided
[ ] Production readiness:
[ ] Model size acceptable for deployment target
[ ] Inference latency within SLA
[ ] Model serialization format compatible
[ ] Input validation at inference time
[ ] Graceful handling of missing/malformed features
[ ] A/B test plan for model rollout
```
## Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|----------|---------|-----|
| "We can skip some steps for this case" | Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them | Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate |
| "The user seems to already know what to do" | Complete all workflow phases with the user | The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses |
| "This is a minor case, full process is overkill" | Scale the process down, don't turn it off | Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears |
| "I'll fill in the details later" | Complete each section before moving on | Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate |
| "The template output isn't necessary" | Always produce the structured output format | Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams |
## Output Format
Produce an ML review report with:
1. **Data leakage findings** (none / potential / confirmed)
2. **Reproducibility assessment** (reproducible / partially / not reproducible)
3. **Bias and fairness** evaluation
4. **Model quality** metrics vs baseline
5. **Production readiness** checklist status
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!