SKILLEMALL.ai

AC ml-system-design-interview

Coaches end-to-end ML system design interviews covering inference pipelines, recommendation systems, RAG, feature stores, and monitoring. Use for L6+ design rounds, ML architecture whiteboarding, system design practice, serving tradeoff analysis. Activate on "ML system design", "ML interview", "recommendation system design", "RAG architecture", "feature store design", "model serving". NOT for coding interviews, behavioral questions, ML theory quizzes, or paper implementations.

curiositech/some_claude_skills Agent Skills author: curiositech 5 files body ≈ 3 202 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 39 min ago

Coaches end-to-end ML system design interviews covering inference pipelines, recommendation systems, RAG, feature stores, and monitoring.

As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

ProcedureSoftware developmentInfrastructureAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
98/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
97
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
57/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/ml-design-templates.md:206
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Adversarial testing: red team generates evasion attempts monthly, measure detection rate

    Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 120): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 85Steps. 10 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3202 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 481: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 14 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 10 items
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 97.