Exp Lens Benchmark Representativeness

Benchmark Representativeness Experimental Design Lens

Philosophical Mode: Generalizability Primary Question: "Does this generalize beyond the test bed?" Focus: Task Distribution, Scenario Coverage, Missing Regions, Dataset Selection, Generalization Claims

Arguments

/autoskillit:exp-lens-benchmark-representativeness [context_path] [experiment_plan_path]

• context_path (optional positional arg 1) — Absolute path to a lens context file containing IV/DV tables, H0/H1 hypotheses, controlled variables, and success criteria. If provided, read this file before beginning analysis to obtain structured context. If omitted, discover context by exploring the CWD.
• experiment_plan_path (optional positional arg 2) — Absolute path to the full experiment plan. If provided, read for complete experimental methodology and design. If omitted, locate the experiment plan by exploring the CWD.

When to Use

• Evaluating claims that extend beyond specific benchmarks
• Checking coverage of evaluation suite
• Assessing dataset diversity
• User invokes /autoskillit:exp-lens-benchmark-representativeness or /autoskillit:make-experiment-diag benchmark

Critical Constraints

NEVER:

• Modify any source code files
• Do not litter the codebase with useless comments, TODO markers, or explanatory annotations — the skill output and diagram speak for themselves
• Create files outside {{AUTOSKILLIT_TEMP}}/exp-lens-benchmark-representativeness/
• Run subagents in the background (run_in_background: true is prohibited)

ALWAYS:

• Focus on GENERALIZATION GAP between benchmark coverage and claimed scope

• Show which regions of the target space are untested

• Document the relationship between benchmark selection and generalization claims

• Include a coverage matrix mapping scenarios to metrics

• BEFORE creating any diagram, LOAD the /autoskillit:mermaid skill using the Skill tool - this is MANDATORY

• If the Skill tool cannot be used (disable-model-invocation) or refuses this invocation, do NOT proceed with diagram creation. Abort this step and omit the diagram from output.

• Write output to {{AUTOSKILLIT_TEMP}}/exp-lens-benchmark-representativeness/exp_diag_benchmark_representativeness_{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS}.md

• After writing the file, emit the structured output token as literal plain text with no markdown formatting on the token name (the adjudicator performs a regex match):

  diagram_path = /absolute/path/to/{{AUTOSKILLIT_TEMP}}/exp-lens-benchmark-representativeness/exp_diag_benchmark_representativeness_{...}.md
  

Analysis Workflow

Step 0: Parse optional arguments

If positional arg 1 (context_path) is provided and the file exists, read it to obtain IV/DV tables, H0/H1 hypotheses, controlled variables, and success criteria. If positional arg 2 (experiment_plan_path) is provided and exists, read the experiment plan for full methodology. Use this structured context as the foundation for Steps 1-5; skip the CWD exploration for these fields if the context file supplies them.

Step 1: Launch Parallel Exploration Subagents

Spawn Explore subagents to investigate:

Benchmark & Dataset Inventory

• Find all datasets, benchmarks, test suites used
• Look for: benchmark, dataset, test_suite, eval, corpus, split, GLUE, ImageNet

Task & Scenario Coverage

• Find what scenarios, conditions, and domains are tested
• Look for: task, scenario, domain, category, difficulty, subset

Metric Coverage

• Find all evaluation metrics used
• Look for: metric, accuracy, f1, bleu, rouge, latency, cost, fairness

Claimed Generalization Scope

• Find claims about generality in docs, papers, READMEs
• Look for: generalize, real-world, production, deploy, robust, transfer, domain

Distribution Characteristics

• Find data distribution analysis, class balance, domain stats
• Look for: distribution, balance, skew, size, demographics, diversity

Step 2: Build the Coverage Matrix

Build the coverage matrix: rows = scenarios/domains tested, columns = metrics measured. Identify which cells are populated and which are gaps. Compare the coverage to the stated generalization claims.

Step 3: CRITICAL — Analyze Generalization Gap

For every generalization claim:

• Target population: What is the full population the claim extends to?
• Benchmark representation: What subset of that population is represented in the benchmark?
• Untested regions: What regions of the space are untested?
• Coverage ratio: Is the coverage sufficient to support the claim?

Distinguish clearly:

• Strong claims (e.g., "production-ready"): require broad, diverse coverage
• Scoped claims (e.g., "best on GLUE"): only require benchmark-specific coverage
• Implicit claims: claims made in framing but not stated explicitly

Step 4: Create the Diagram

Use flowchart with:

Direction: TB (claims flow from benchmarks up to generalization)

Subgraphs:

• BENCHMARKS USED
• SCENARIOS TESTED
• METRICS MEASURED
• GENERALIZATION CLAIMS
• UNTESTED REGIONS

Node Styling:

• stateNode class: benchmarks/datasets
• handler class: tested scenarios
• output class: measured metrics
• cli class: generalization claims
• gap class: untested regions/missing coverage
• detector class: validation of generalization

Step 5: Write Output

Write the diagram to: {{AUTOSKILLIT_TEMP}}/exp-lens-benchmark-representativeness/exp_diag_benchmark_representativeness_{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS}.md (relative to the current working directory)

Output Template

# Benchmark Representativeness Diagram: {System Name}

**Lens:** Benchmark Representativeness (Generalizability)
**Question:** Does this generalize beyond the test bed?
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Scope:** {What was analyzed}

## Coverage Matrix

| Scenario / Domain | {Metric A} | {Metric B} | {Metric C} | Coverage |
|-------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----------|
| {Scenario 1}      | ✓         | ✓         | ✗         | Partial  |
| {Scenario 2}      | ✗         | ✗         | ✗         | None     |
| {Scenario 3}      | ✓         | ✓         | ✓         | Full     |

## Benchmark Representativeness Diagram

```mermaid
%%{init: {'flowchart': {'nodeSpacing': 50, 'rankSpacing': 60, 'curve': 'basis'}}}%%
flowchart TB
    %% CLASS DEFINITIONS %%
    classDef cli fill:#1a237e,stroke:#7986cb,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;
    classDef stateNode fill:#004d40,stroke:#4db6ac,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;
    classDef handler fill:#e65100,stroke:#ffb74d,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;
    classDef phase fill:#6a1b9a,stroke:#ba68c8,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;
    classDef newComponent fill:#2e7d32,stroke:#81c784,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;
    classDef output fill:#00695c,stroke:#4db6ac,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;
    classDef detector fill:#b71c1c,stroke:#ef5350,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;
    classDef gap fill:#ff6f00,stroke:#ffa726,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
    classDef integration fill:#c62828,stroke:#ef9a9a,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff;

    subgraph Benchmarks ["BENCHMARKS USED"]
        direction TB
        B1["{Benchmark 1}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{size}, {domain}"]
        B2["{Benchmark 2}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{size}, {domain}"]
    end

    subgraph Scenarios ["SCENARIOS TESTED"]
        direction TB
        S1["{Scenario 1}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{conditions}"]
        S2["{Scenario 2}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{conditions}"]
    end

    subgraph Metrics ["METRICS MEASURED"]
        direction TB
        M1["{Metric A}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{what it captures}"]
        M2["{Metric B}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{what it captures}"]
    end

    subgraph Claims ["GENERALIZATION CLAIMS"]
        direction TB
        C1["{Claim 1}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{source of claim}"]
        C2["{Claim 2}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{source of claim}"]
    end

    subgraph Gaps ["UNTESTED REGIONS"]
        direction TB
        G1["{Gap 1}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{why it matters}"]
        G2["{Gap 2}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>{why it matters}"]
    end

    VALIDATE["{Generalization Validity Check}<br/>━━━━━━━━━━<br/>Coverage vs. Claim scope"]

    B1 --> S1
    B2 --> S2
    S1 --> M1
    S2 --> M2
    M1 --> C1
    M2 --> C2
    C1 --> VALIDATE
    C2 --> VALIDATE
    G1 -.->|missing| VALIDATE
    G2 -.->|missing| VALIDATE

    %% CLASS ASSIGNMENTS %%
    class B1,B2 stateNode;
    class S1,S2 handler;
    class M1,M2 output;
    class C1,C2 cli;
    class G1,G2 gap;
    class VALIDATE detector;

Color Legend:

Generalization Gap Analysis

Representativeness Assessment

---

## Pre-Diagram Checklist

Before creating the diagram, verify:

- [ ] LOADED `/autoskillit:mermaid` skill using the Skill tool
- [ ] Using ONLY classDef styles from the mermaid skill (no invented colors)
- [ ] Diagram will include a color legend table

---

## Related Skills

- `/autoskillit:make-experiment-diag` - Parent skill for lens selection
- `/autoskillit:mermaid` - MUST BE LOADED before creating diagram
- `/autoskillit:exp-lens-measurement-validity` - For metric quality analysis
- `/autoskillit:exp-lens-validity-threats` - For systematic threat inventory