Use for text / NLP / LLM tasks: text classification, sentiment, NER/token tagging, QA, summarization, translation, semantic search / embeddings, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), chatbots/agents, and fine-tuning language models. Picks prompt vs fine-tune vs RAG, the right model, and rigorous text evaluation. Triggers on 'classify text', 'sentiment', 'NER', 'summarize', 'chatbot', 'RAG', 'embeddings', 'fine-tune LLM', 'question answering'.
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add mxslr/mlcraft --skill domain-nlp-llm --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Domain Nlp Llm?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mxslr-domain-nlp-llm)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: domain-nlp-llm
description: "Use for text / NLP / LLM tasks: text classification, sentiment, NER/token tagging, QA, summarization, translation, semantic search / embeddings, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), chatbots/agents, and fine-tuning language models. Picks prompt vs fine-tune vs RAG, the right model, and rigorous text evaluation. Triggers on 'classify text', 'sentiment', 'NER', 'summarize', 'chatbot', 'RAG', 'embeddings', 'fine-tune LLM', 'question answering'."
---
# NLP / LLM - Method Selection
First decide the *cheapest approach that works*: prompt, then RAG, then fine-tune, in that order of effort.
## Decision table
| Sub-task | Recommended | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Text classification / sentiment | **Fine-tune DeBERTa-v3 / RoBERTa** (or a strong LLM few-shot if data is tiny) | Encoder models are cheap, strong, and fast for fixed label sets. |
| NER / token tagging | **DeBERTa/RoBERTa token-classification** | Span-level F1; watch tokenizer alignment. |
| Semantic search / dedup / clustering | **Sentence-embeddings (e5 / BGE / GTE)** + vector index | Cosine similarity; evaluate with retrieval metrics. |
| Knowledge Q&A over your docs | **RAG** (embed + retrieve + LLM answer) | Prefer RAG over fine-tuning for factual/updatable knowledge. |
| Summarize / rewrite / extract / generate | **Instruction-tuned LLM (prompted)** | Start with prompting + few-shot; structured output via schema. |
| Domain adaptation of an LLM | **LoRA/QLoRA fine-tune** | Parameter-efficient; only after prompting/RAG proves insufficient. |
| Chatbot / tool-use agent | **LLM + tools/function-calling**, RAG for grounding | Define tools crisply; add guardrails. |
## Choosing prompt vs RAG vs fine-tune
- **Prompt / few-shot**: fastest; use when the base model can already do it with instructions.
- **RAG**: when the model lacks *knowledge* (private/updatable facts). Fixes hallucination better than fine-tuning.
- **Fine-tune (LoRA)**: when you need a *behavior/format/style* the base model won't follow, or a cheap specialized classifier. Not for injecting facts.
## Rigor
- **Split leakage**: dedup near-duplicate texts; split by **document/author/time**, not random sentences. For RAG, keep eval questions out of the indexed corpus if testing generalization.
- **Metrics**: classification uses F1/AUC (macro for imbalance); generation uses task metrics plus **LLM-as-judge with a rubric** plus human spot-checks; retrieval uses recall@k / nDCG; QA uses exact-match/F1 plus faithfulness/groundedness.
- **Robustness**: check prompt sensitivity, class imbalance, and demographic/topic subgroups.
- Improve: use `accuracy-improvement-loop` (better retriever, hard-negative mining, better chunking, ensemble/judge, fine-tune last).

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!