Install
$ agentstack add skill-nimadorostkar-claude-skills-collection-fine-tuning ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Fine-Tuning
Purpose
Decide whether fine-tuning is warranted, and do it properly if it is. Most fine-tuning projects should have been prompt engineering or retrieval, and the ones that should be fine-tuning usually fail on dataset quality rather than on the training.
When to Use
- A task where prompting has plateaued below the required accuracy.
- A specific output format, style, or domain vocabulary the model will not adopt reliably.
- Reducing cost by making a small model do what currently requires a large one.
- Evaluating an existing fine-tuned model that underperforms.
Capabilities
- Deciding between prompting, RAG, and fine-tuning.
- Dataset construction, curation, and splitting.
- LoRA and QLoRA versus full fine-tuning.
- Hyperparameter selection and overfitting detection.
- Evaluation against the base model on the same set.
Inputs
- The task, and the accuracy prompting achieves on it.
- Available training data — its volume, and honestly, its quality.
- Latency and cost constraints.
Outputs
- A justified decision to fine-tune, or not to.
- A curated dataset with clean train/validation/test splits.
- A model measurably better than the base model on a held-out set.
Workflow
- Exhaust prompting first — Few-shot examples, a clearer output contract, a better model. Fine-tuning cannot teach knowledge the model lacks; it teaches behavior. If the problem is that the model does not know something, use retrieval instead.
- Decide what fine-tuning is actually for — Format adherence, tone, a domain-specific classification boundary, or distilling a large model's behavior into a small one. Those are the cases where it works.
- Build the dataset carefully — This is where the project succeeds or fails. A thousand clean, consistent examples beat fifty thousand noisy ones. Inconsistent labels teach the model to be inconsistent.
- Split before you look — Train, validation, test. The test set is touched once, at the end. Selecting a checkpoint on the test set is how you produce a model that scores well and performs badly.
- Start with LoRA — It is cheap, fast, and sufficient for the majority of tasks. Full fine-tuning is warranted rarely.
- Compare against the base model on the same test set — With the same prompt. A fine-tuned model that does not beat a well-prompted base model is a liability, not an asset.
Best Practices
- Fine-tuning teaches form, not facts. A model fine-tuned on your documentation will produce text that sounds like your documentation, with invented details. Use RAG for facts.
- Dataset quality dominates every other factor. Inconsistent labeling in the training set is the most common cause of a fine-tune that underperforms.
- Watch the validation loss. When it rises while training loss falls, you are overfitting — stop, do not train longer.
- A fine-tuned model is a maintenance liability: it must be re-trained when the base model updates, and it is a fixed artifact while prompts are editable in minutes.
- Distillation — fine-tuning a small model on a large model's outputs — is the most reliably valuable use of fine-tuning, because the training data can be generated at scale and is internally consistent by construction.
- Keep the training data. When you need to retrain in a year, reconstructing it will be impossible.
Examples
The decision, made honestly:
Task: classify support tickets into 40 internal categories.
Baseline (prompt only, large model): 71% accuracy
+ 8 few-shot examples: 79%
+ clarified overlapping category defs: 86% DatasetReport:
return DatasetReport(
total=len(examples),
# Near-duplicates inflate the count and cause memorization.
duplicates=count_near_duplicates(examples, threshold=0.95),
# Class balance: a category with 4 examples will not be learned.
per_class=Counter(e.label for e in examples),
underrepresented=[c for c, n in Counter(e.label for e in examples).items() if n the labeling guidelines are ambiguous. Fix them and relabel.
# underrepresented -> gather more, or merge the category.
# train_test_overlap > 0 -> the test score is meaningless. Re-split.
Notes
- Cohen's kappa below 0.8 between annotators means the task itself is under-defined. No amount of training will make the model more consistent than its training data.
- LoRA adapters are small (megabytes) and can be swapped at inference. Several task-specific adapters over one base model is usually a better architecture than several fully fine-tuned models.
- The most valuable output of a failed fine-tuning project is usually the evaluation set that was built for it. Keep it — it makes every subsequent prompt change measurable.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: nimadorostkar
- Source: nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://github.com/nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.