Install
npx skillscat add akaszubski/autonomous-dev/quality-scoring Install via the SkillsCat registry.
This skill evaluates training data quality by assessing multiple dimensions including instruction-following difficulty, factuality, reasoning, diversity, domain relevance, and overall LLM quality. It provides standardized scoring methods and thresholds for different training approaches like SFT, DPO, and RLVR. Developers use it during data preparation to filter and score training examples before model training.
Quality Scoring
Multi-dimensional assessment for training data quality.
When Activates
Quality assessment, data scoring, multi-dimensional evaluation, IFD scoring, factuality checks, reasoning validation, training data prep
Core Concepts
Quality Scorers (6 Types)
Fast to comprehensive scoring approaches:
- FastIFD - Instruction-following difficulty (10-20x faster)
- Quality - LLM-based quality (Qwen3-30B, 0.85 ex/s)
- MultiDimensional - 5-dimension composite
- LLMQuality - Multi-backend (MLX/OpenRouter)
- Ensemble - Cross-model ensemble
- Tulu3 - Multi-dimensional reference (training_metrics.py)
Quality Dimensions (6 Metrics)
- IFD Score (0.0-1.0) - Instruction-following difficulty
- Factuality (0.0-1.0) - Hallucination detection
- Reasoning (0.0-1.0) - Step-by-step logic quality
- Diversity (0.0-1.0) - Dataset-level diversity
- Domain (0.0-1.0) - Domain-specific relevance
- LLM Quality (1-10) - Tulu3 comprehensive score
Training Thresholds
| Type | Quality | IFD | Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| SFT | ≥8.0 | ≥0.3 | Base training |
| DPO chosen | ≥9.0 | ≥0.5 | High quality only |
| DPO rejected | ≤6.0 | any | Low quality |
| RLVR | ≥9.0 | ≥0.5 | Verified solutions |
| Calibration | ≥8.0 | ≥0.4 | Uncertainty examples |
Quick Reference
| Concept | Details | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Scorers | 6 types (FastIFD to Ensemble) | quality-scorers.md |
| Dimensions | 6 metrics (IFD to LLM Quality) | quality-dimensions.md |
| Thresholds | By training type (SFT, DPO, RLVR) | training-thresholds.md |
| Library | training_metrics.py |
Integration functions |
IFD Score Calculation
from training_metrics import calculate_ifd_score
# IFD = PPL(response) / PPL(response|instruction)
ifd_score = calculate_ifd_score(
instruction="Explain quantum computing",
response="Quantum computing uses qubits..."
)
# Higher score = more challengingDPO Pair Validation
from training_metrics import validate_dpo_pairs
# Validate chosen/rejected quality gap
is_valid = validate_dpo_pairs(
chosen_score=9.2, # High quality
rejected_score=5.8 # Low quality
)
# Ensures quality gap ≥0.15REQUIRED: DPO Multi-Dimensional Scoring
Every DPO pair MUST have multi-dimensional quality scores before training.
This is a hard requirement — DPO data without quality scores will learn shortcuts (e.g., "longer = better") instead of genuine preference signal.
Required output fields per pair:
chosen_score(float): Composite quality score for chosen responserejected_score(float): Composite quality score for rejected responsemargin(float): chosen_score - rejected_score (must be ≥3.0)
Length bias audit (MUST run before DPO training):
from pathlib import Path
from training_metrics import validate_dpo_pairs
metrics = validate_dpo_pairs(dpo_path=Path("dpo_pairs.jsonl"))
# Check length bias
longer_chosen = sum(1 for p in metrics.pairs if len(p.chosen) > len(p.rejected))
length_bias = longer_chosen / metrics.total_pairs
if length_bias > 0.70:
raise ValueError(
f"DPO length bias {length_bias:.0%} > 70% threshold.\n"
f"Model will learn 'longer = better' shortcut.\n"
f"Fix: Score by quality dimensions, not length."
)
# Check quality scores present
missing = sum(1 for p in metrics.pairs if p.chosen_score is None)
if missing > 0:
raise ValueError(f"{missing} pairs missing quality scores — run scoring first")Scoring workflow:
- Generate DPO pairs (dpo-rlvr-generation skill)
- Score all pairs with multi-dimensional scorer (this skill)
- Filter by quality margin ≥3.0
- Audit length bias ≤70%
- Only then proceed to training
RLVR Verifiability
from training_metrics import assess_rlvr_verifiability
# Assess reasoning trace verifiability
verifiable = assess_rlvr_verifiability(
reasoning_trace="Step 1: ...\nStep 2: ...",
domain="math"
)
# Math/coding: 90%+ verifiable requiredProgressive Disclosure
Detailed guides: See docs/*.md
docs/quality-scorers.md- 6 scorer implementationsdocs/quality-dimensions.md- 6 dimension definitionsdocs/training-thresholds.md- Thresholds, CLI, distributed performance
Security Considerations
Input Validation (CWE-20)
- Validate score ranges (0.0-1.0 or 1-10)
- Sanitize data inputs before scoring
- Check threshold values before application
Path Traversal (CWE-22)
- Sanitize file paths for data loading
- Whitelist directories for training data
- Validate output paths for scored datasets
Security Patterns (training_metrics.py)
from pathlib import Path
def safe_load_data(data_path: str) -> dict:
"""Load data with path validation."""
# Validate path within allowed directory
path = Path(data_path).resolve()
if not str(path).startswith('/allowed/data/'):
raise ValueError(f"Path outside allowed directory: {path}")
# Load safely
return json.loads(path.read_text())Distributed Performance
Single Machine Performance
- M4 Max: ~0.85 ex/s (Qwen3-30B)
- M3 Ultra: ~0.85 ex/s (Qwen3-30B)
Parallel Processing
- Combined throughput: ~1.7 ex/s (50/50 split)
- Scaling: Linear with machine count
- Bottleneck: Model inference, not I/O
CLI Commands
# Score dataset with FastIFD
python -m training_metrics score \
--input data/train.jsonl \
--output data/scored.jsonl \
--scorer fastifd \
--threshold 0.3
# Multi-dimensional scoring
python -m training_metrics score \
--input data/train.jsonl \
--output data/scored.jsonl \
--scorer multidim \
--quality-threshold 8.0 \
--ifd-threshold 0.5
# DPO pair filtering
python -m training_metrics filter_dpo \
--input data/dpo_pairs.jsonl \
--output data/filtered_pairs.jsonl \
--chosen-threshold 9.0 \
--rejected-threshold 6.0
# RLVR verifiability check
python -m training_metrics assess_rlvr \
--input data/rlvr_traces.jsonl \
--output data/verified.jsonl \
--domain math \
--threshold 0.9Related Skills
- data-distillation - IFD methodology and KenLM filtering
- preference-data-quality - DPO and RLVR metrics
- python-standards - Code quality standards
Library Integration
Primary library: training_metrics.py
Key functions:
calculate_ifd_score()- IFD calculationvalidate_dpo_pairs()- DPO pair validationassess_rlvr_verifiability()- RLVR assessmentscore_quality()- Multi-dimensional scoringensemble_score()- Cross-model ensemble
Key Takeaways
- 6 scorers - FastIFD (fast) to Ensemble (comprehensive)
- 6 dimensions - IFD, Factuality, Reasoning, Diversity, Domain, LLM Quality
- Training thresholds - SFT ≥8.0, DPO chosen ≥9.0, RLVR ≥9.0
- IFD score - PPL(response) / PPL(response|instruction), higher = harder
- Security - CWE-20 (input validation), CWE-22 (path traversal)
- Distributed - ~1.7 ex/s with 2 machines (linear scaling)
- CLI commands - training_metrics module for all operations
- Integration - Use training_metrics library functions
- DPO pairs - Chosen ≥9.0, Rejected ≤6.0, gap ≥0.15
- RLVR - Math/coding 90%+ verifiable, general 80%+
- DPO scoring REQUIRED - Every pair must have chosen_score, rejected_score, margin before training
- Length bias audit - ≤70% of pairs where chosen is longer (prevents "longer = better" shortcut)