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.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Sponsors
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory
Is that skill safe to install?
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory
Know which skills are safe — weekly.
Are you the author of Ml Model Code Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cloudthinker-ai-ml-model-code-review)
---
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