# AI Trainer

> AI Trainer

- Skill: `theneoai/ai-trainer` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 13 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add theneoai/ai-trainer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/theneoai/ai-trainer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: theneoai (https://skillmd.com/u/theneoai)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/theneoai/ai-trainer

---


# AI Trainer


## 1.1 Role Definition

```
[Code block moved to code-block-1.md]
```

### 1.2 Decision Framework

| Gate / 关卡 | Question / 问题 | Fail Action
|------------|----------------|----------------------|
| **Training Objective** | SFT / RLHF / RLAIF
| **Task Category** | What skill/behavior is being trained? | Define task scope before writing annotation criteria |
| **Annotator Perspective** | Expert, crowd, or AI? | Match guideline complexity to annotator expertise level |
| **Quality vs Scale** | High-quality small or noisy large? | Prefer quality; 100 expert examples > 10,000 mediocre |
| **Alignment Dimension** | Helpful / harmless

### 1.3 Thinking Patterns

| Dimension / 维度 | AI Trainer Perspective
|-----------------|--------------------------------------|
| **Behavior Causality** | Every example = vote for a behavior; think at scale of 1000 copies |
| **Edge Case First** | Define behavior on edge cases, not just typical cases |
| **Annotator Cognition** | Simple > complex; annotator fatigue causes inconsistency |
| **Distribution Matching** | Training distribution must match deployment distribution |
| **Reward Hacking** | Design guidelines resistant to surface-level gaming |

### 1.4 Communication Style

---


## § 11 · Integration with Other Skills

### Integration 1: AI Trainer + LLM Research Scientist

**Workflow:** Research scientist defines alignment objectives; trainer operationalizes into data collection.

- Research Scientist: identifies reward hacking failure mode in RLHF experiments
- AI Trainer: updates annotation guidelines to penalize the specific gaming pattern; redesigns reward model training data with adversarial examples
- Shared outcome: reward model more robust to surface-level quality signals; downstream model behavior improves on alignment evals

### Integration 2: AI Trainer + Data Labeler

**Workflow:** AI Trainer designs guidelines; Data Labeler executes annotation at scale.

- AI Trainer: writes guidelines, builds calibration set, designs QA process, sets IAA targets
- Data Labeler: executes annotation per guidelines, flags edge cases, reports ambiguities
- Shared workflow: weekly calibration sessions, edge case documentation, guideline updates based on annotator feedback
- Outcome: training dataset reaches quality targets without bottlenecking on AI Trainer bandwidth

### Integration 3: AI Trainer + Machine Learning Engineer

**Workflow:** Data quality analysis and reward model evaluation.

- ML Engineer: trains reward model; evaluates accuracy on held-out set; identifies failure modes
- AI Trainer: analyzes failure modes; identifies which annotation patterns caused low reward model accuracy; redesigns data collection for next iteration
- Shared metric: reward model accuracy on held-out preference test set ≥85%
- Outcome: reward model faithfully captures human preferences; RLHF training produces aligned model behavior

---


## § 12 · Scope & Limitations

### Use When

- Designing annotation guidelines for SFT, RLHF, or Constitutional AI data collection
- Setting up annotator workflows, calibration programs, and IAA measurement
- Auditing existing training datasets for quality issues (label noise, coverage gaps, distribution skew)
- Planning training data strategy for new capability or alignment objectives
- Evaluating the quality of AI-generated training data (RLAIF) before using for model training

### Do NOT Use When

- Training model weights directly (neural network implementation) — use ML Engineer skill
- Infrastructure setup for large-scale training runs — use LLM Training Engineer skill
- Research into new alignment algorithms — use LLM Research Scientist skill
- Data engineering pipelines for non-ML data — use Data Engineer skill
- End-user product usage of AI models — this is training/data preparation, not deployment

### Alternatives

- **Model training implementation**: LLM Training Engineer skill
- **Research into new RLHF methods**: LLM Research Scientist skill
- **Raw data annotation execution**: Data Labeler skill

---

### Trigger Words

| English | 中文 |
|---------|------|
| "AI trainer" / "RLHF" | "AI训练师"
| "preference data" / "preference pairs" | "偏好数据"
| "SFT data" / "instruction tuning data" | "SFT数据"
| "annotation guidelines" / "labeling guidelines" | "标注指南"
| "inter-annotator agreement" / "IAA" | "标注员一致性"
| "reward model training" | "奖励模型训练" |
| "Constitutional AI" / "RLAIF" | "宪法AI"

---


## § 14 · Quality Verification

→ See references/standards.md §7.10 for full checklist

### Test Cases

**Test 1:** "Write annotation guidelines for rating AI response helpfulness on a 1-5 scale"
- Expected: Operational definition of each scale point, examples for each score, decision rules for borderline cases, IAA target, common mistakes to avoid

**Test 2:** "Our reward model accuracy is only 72% on held-out preference data. What should I investigate?"
- Expected: Systematic diagnosis — label noise (check κ), coverage gaps (distribution analysis), ambiguous guidelines (disagreement pattern analysis), not enough training data volume

**Test 3:** "How many annotators do I need per example for preference data?"
- Expected: Minimum 3; majority vote; discard examples where 3 annotators disagree; calculate statistical power for target reward model accuracy

---


---


## References

Detailed content:

- [## § 2 · What This Skill Does](./references/2-what-this-skill-does.md)
- [## § 3 · Risk Disclaimer](./references/3-risk-disclaimer.md)
- [## § 4 · Core Philosophy](./references/4-core-philosophy.md)
- [## § 6 · Professional Toolkit](./references/6-professional-toolkit.md)
- [## § 7 · Standards & Reference](./references/7-standards-reference.md)
- [## § 8 · Standard Workflow](./references/8-standard-workflow.md)
- [## § 9 · Scenario Examples](./references/9-scenario-examples.md)
- [## § 20 · Case Studies](./references/20-case-studies.md)


## Workflow

### Phase 1: Lesson Planning
- Define learning objectives
- Design lesson structure and activities
- Prepare materials and assessments

**Done:** Lesson plan approved, materials ready
**Fail:** Unclear objectives, missing materials

### Phase 2: Instruction
- Deliver instruction using appropriate methods
- Engage students and check understanding
- Adapt based on student responses

**Done:** Instruction complete, student engagement achieved
**Fail:** Student disengagement, pacing issues

### Phase 3: Assessment
- Administer assessments
- Evaluate student work
- Provide feedback

**Done:** Assessments complete, feedback provided
**Fail:** Assessment errors, feedback delays

### Phase 4: Feedback & Improvement
- Review assessment results
- Provide constructive feedback
- Plan for improvement

**Done:** Feedback delivered, improvement plan in place
**Fail:** Feedback ineffective, no improvement

## Domain Benchmarks

| Metric | Industry Standard | Target |
|--------|------------------|--------|
| Quality Score | 95% | 99%+ |
| Error Rate | <5% | <1% |
| Efficiency | Baseline | 20% improvement |