training-check-7d403c — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited training-check-7d403c (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Periodically read WandB metrics during training to catch problems early. Do not wait until training finishes to discover it was a waste of GPU time.
entity/project/run_id)gpt-5.4 — used via Codex MCP for ambiguous cases onlyimport wandb
api = wandb.Api()
run = api.run("<entity>/<project>/<run_id>")
history = run.history()If WandB is unreachable (API error, network issue), fall back to reading the log file directly via SSH:
ssh server "tail -100 /path/to/training.log"Check these signals:
| Signal | Judgment | Action |
|---|---|---|
| NaN/Inf in loss | Clearly bad | Stop training, investigate |
| Loss diverging (increasing for >N steps) | Clearly bad | Stop training, investigate |
| Eval metrics significantly worse than baseline | Clearly bad | Stop training, investigate |
| Loss decreasing, metrics improving | Clearly fine | Continue, increase check interval |
| Loss flat but not diverging | Unsure | → Step 3 (Codex judgment) |
| Metrics noisy, can't tell trend | Unsure | → Step 3 (Codex judgment) |
| Slightly worse than baseline but still early | Unsure | → Step 3 (Codex judgment) |
Only escalate to Codex when the signal is ambiguous. For clearly good or clearly bad signals, act directly.
mcp__codex__codex:
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "high"}
prompt: |
TRAINING HEALTH CHECK — need your judgment on ambiguous metrics.
Run: <entity>/<project>/<run_id>
Current epoch/step: X / Y total
Training loss (last 10 checkpoints): [values]
Eval metrics (last 3 evals): [values]
Baseline reference: [numbers from paper/reproduction]
What I'm unsure about: [specific concern]
Please respond with exactly one of:
- STOP: clearly problematic, should kill training
- CONTINUE: looks fine, check again next interval
- WAIT: not enough data to judge, check again sooner| Decision | Action |
|---|---|
| Stop | Kill the training session. Save the WandB run URL, key metrics, and reason for stopping. Log to project notes for debugging. |
| Continue | Do nothing. Will be invoked again at next interval (increase interval if consistently healthy). |
| Wait | Do nothing but keep the current short interval (don't increase). |
Training-check and watchdog.py operate at different levels:
| Layer | Tool | What it checks | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process health | watchdog.py | Session alive? GPU active? | Every 60s (continuous) |
| Training quality | training-check | Loss trend? Metrics improving? | Every 10-60 min (periodic) |
Use both together:
After training is confirmed stable:
CronCreate (recurring, every 10 minutes initially):
"Run /training-check for wandb run <entity>/<project>/<run_id>"As the check interval increases, delete the old CronCreate job and create a new one with the longer interval.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.