parameter-optimization
>
pinned to #fa1ce8dupdated 2 weeks ago
Ask your AI client: “install skills/parameter-optimization”.
Requires the metahub MCP server installed in your client. Set up MCP.
mh install skills/parameter-optimizationmetahub onboarded this repo on the author's behalf.
If you own github.com/HeshamFS/materials-simulation-skills on GitHub, claim the listing to take over publishing. Your claim preserves the existing eval history and badges; only the curator label is replaced with verified-publisher on your next publish.
Stars
56
Last commit
2 weeks ago
Latest release
published
- #agent-skills
- #agents
- #cli-tools
- #computational-science
- #llm
- #materials-science
- #numerical-methods
- #simulation
- #skills
About this skill
Pulled from SKILL.md at publish time.
Allowed tools
- Read
- Write
- Grep
- Glob
Evaluation report
WarningsAutomated checks the publisher passed at publish time — structure, docs, safety, and whether the artifact behaves as claimed.fa1ce8d· 2 weeks ago
Documentation
41Description qualitywarn
15 words · 131 chars — manifest description is empty; graded the GitHub repo description instead
A skill's manifest description doubles as its trigger — add one to SKILL.md (15+ words, e.g. “use this skill when …”).
README is present and substantial
8,414 chars · 9 sections · 5 code blocks
Tags / topics declared
9 total — agent-skills, agents, cli-tools, computational-science, llm, materials-science (+3)
README has usage / example sections
no labeled section but 5 code blocks document usage
Homepage / docs URL declared
no homepage declared (registry will use the repo URL) — info-only, not blocking
Release history
1- releasecurrentfa1ce8dwarn2 weeks ago
Contents
Goal
Provide a workflow to design experiments, rank parameter influence, and select optimization strategies for materials simulation calibration.
Requirements
- Python 3.10+
- No external dependencies (uses Python standard library only)
Inputs to Gather
Before running any scripts, collect from the user:
| Input | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Parameter bounds | Min/max for each parameter with units | kappa: [0.1, 10.0] W/mK |
| Evaluation budget | Max number of simulations allowed | 50 runs |
| Noise level | Stochasticity of simulation outputs | low, medium, high |
| Constraints | Feasibility rules or forbidden regions | kappa + mobility < 5 |
Decision Guidance
Choosing a DOE Method
Is dimension <= 3 AND full coverage needed?
├── YES → Use factorial
└── NO → Is sensitivity analysis the goal?
├── YES → Use quasi-random (preferred; "sobol" is accepted but deprecated)
└── NO → Use lhs (Latin Hypercube)
| Method | Best For | Avoid When |
|---|---|---|
lhs | General exploration, moderate dimensions (3-20) | Need exact grid coverage |
quasi-random | Sensitivity analysis, uniform coverage (preferred) | Very high dimensions (>20) |
sobol | Deprecated alias of quasi-random (emits a warning) | New code (use quasi-random) |
factorial | Low dimension (<4), need all corners | High dimension (exponential growth) |
Factorial sizing: the factorial grid is
levelsevenly spaced values per parameter, producing exactlylevels ** paramssamples. Set the resolution explicitly with--levels(e.g.--params 2 --levels 4-> 16 samples). If you use--budgetinstead, the script back-computeslevels = round(budget ** (1/params))and warns whenever the realized sample count differs from the requested budget (e.g.--budget 20 --params 2realizes 16 samples). For an exact design, pass a perfect power (--budget 16) or, preferably,--levels.
Choosing an Optimizer
Is dimension <= 10 AND budget <= 100?
├── YES → Bayesian Optimization
└── NO → Is dimension <= 20?
├── YES → CMA-ES
└── NO → Random Search with screening
| Noise Level | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Low | Gradient-based if derivatives available, else Bayesian Optimization |
| Medium | Bayesian Optimization with noise model |
| High | Evolutionary algorithms or robust Bayesian Optimization |
Script Outputs (JSON Fields)
| Script | Output Fields |
|---|---|
scripts/doe_generator.py | samples, method, coverage (count, dimension; plus levels and a top-level requested_budget/note for factorial) |
scripts/optimizer_selector.py | recommended, expected_evals, notes |
scripts/sensitivity_summary.py | ranking, notes |
scripts/surrogate_builder.py | model_type, metrics (mse, cv_error, output_variance), notes |
Workflow
- Generate DOE with
scripts/doe_generator.py - Run simulations at DOE sample points (user's responsibility)
- Summarize sensitivity with
scripts/sensitivity_summary.py - Choose optimizer using
scripts/optimizer_selector.py - (Optional) Fit surrogate with
scripts/surrogate_builder.py
CLI Examples
# Generate 20 LHS samples for 3 parameters
python3 scripts/doe_generator.py --params 3 --budget 20 --method lhs --json
# Full factorial with 4 levels per parameter (2 params -> 16 samples)
python3 scripts/doe_generator.py --params 2 --levels 4 --method factorial --json
# Rank parameters by sensitivity scores
python3 scripts/sensitivity_summary.py --scores 0.2,0.5,0.3 --names kappa,mobility,W --json
# Get optimizer recommendation for 3D problem with 50 eval budget
python3 scripts/optimizer_selector.py --dim 3 --budget 50 --noise low --json
# Build surrogate model from simulation data
python3 scripts/surrogate_builder.py --x 0,1,2 --y 10,12,15 --model rbf --json
Conversational Workflow Example
User: I need to calibrate thermal conductivity and diffusivity for my FEM simulation. I can run about 30 simulations.
Agent workflow:
- Identify 2 parameters →
--params 2 - Budget is 30 →
--budget 30 - Use LHS for general exploration:
python3 scripts/doe_generator.py --params 2 --budget 30 --method lhs --json - After user runs simulations and provides outputs, summarize sensitivity:
python3 scripts/sensitivity_summary.py --scores 0.7,0.3 --names conductivity,diffusivity --json - Recommend optimizer:
python3 scripts/optimizer_selector.py --dim 2 --budget 30 --noise low --json
Error Handling
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
params must be positive | Zero or negative dimension | Ask user for valid parameter count |
budget must be positive | Zero or negative budget | Ask user for realistic simulation budget |
argument --method: invalid choice: <value> (choose from lhs, sobol, quasi-random, factorial) | Invalid method (argparse) | Use decision guidance to pick a valid method |
could not convert string to float: <token> | Non-numeric value in --scores/--x/--y | Reformat as 0.1,0.2,0.3 |
scores must be a comma-separated list | Empty --scores input | Provide at least one numeric score |
Verification checklist
- Recorded the exact
doe_generator.pycoverage.countand confirmed it matches the intended design — forfactorial, verifiedcount == levels ** paramsand that nonote/requested_budgetmismatch warning was emitted (or that the realized count is acceptable). - Confirmed the chosen
--methodmatches the Decision Guidance for the actual dimension/goal, and thatquasi-randomwas used instead of the deprecatedsobolalias (noDeprecationWarningin output). - Recorded the
optimizer_selector.pyrecommendedstrategy andexpected_evals, and verifiedexpected_evals <= budgetso the plan is feasible within the stated evaluation budget. - Logged the
sensitivity_summary.pyrankingand checked whether the top sensitivity is< 0.1(the "All sensitivities are low" note); if so, did not over-interpret the ranking and revisited the output metric. - For surrogate fits, judged quality with
metrics.cv_error(leave-one-out), NOT in-samplemse— especially forrbf, wheremseis near zero by construction — and comparedcv_erroragainstmetrics.output_varianceto confirm the surrogate beats the constant-mean baseline. - Confirmed any reported
cv_erroris a finite number (notNaN), i.e. there were enough samples for leave-one-out (poly:n > degree+1;rbf:n >= 3).
Common pitfalls & rationalizations
| Tempting shortcut | Why it's wrong / what to do |
|---|---|
"RBF surrogate mse is ~0, so the model is excellent." | RBF is an exact interpolant — in-sample mse is near zero by construction and says nothing about generalization. Judge fit with metrics.cv_error and compare it to output_variance. |
"I asked for --budget 20 factorial, so I got 20 samples." | Factorial honors levels ** params, not the budget; --budget 20 --params 2 realizes 16 samples and emits a note/warning. Use --levels for an exact, intended design. |
"sobol gives me a true Sobol low-discrepancy sequence." | sobol is a deprecated alias that emits a DeprecationWarning and uses a simplified golden-ratio additive recurrence, not a true Sobol sequence. Use quasi-random; for production Sobol use scipy.stats.qmc. |
| "The optimizer recommendation is just advice — budget doesn't matter." | The recommendation is gated on dimension AND budget (BO only for dim<=10 AND budget<=100), and expected_evals is capped at the budget. Record both and confirm the plan fits the real budget. |
| "One sensitivity score is highest, so that parameter dominates." | The script only sorts the scores you pass in; it computes no sensitivity itself. If the top score is < 0.1 it flags that all sensitivities are low — get the scores from a real screening/Sobol analysis before trusting the ranking. |
| "It printed JSON without erroring, so the result is valid." | Exit success only means inputs parsed. Verify the design size, expected_evals <= budget, a finite cv_error, and that the surrogate beats output_variance before trusting any output. |
Security
Input Validation
sensitivity_summary.pyvalidates--namesagainst[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_ .-]*with a 200-char limit, preventing shell metacharacter injection via crafted parameter names- All numeric list inputs are validated as finite numbers (
NaN/Infrejected) - Comma-separated value lists are capped (10,000 for scores, 100,000 for surrogate data) to prevent resource exhaustion
doe_generator.pycaps dimension at 1,000 and budget at 1,000,000;optimizer_selector.pycaps dimension at 100,000 and budget at 10,000,000--methodis validated against a fixed allowlist (lhs,quasi-random/sobol,factorial);sobolis an accepted but deprecated alias ofquasi-random--noiseis validated against a fixed allowlist (low,medium,high)--model(surrogate type) is validated against a fixed allowlist (rbf,poly)--levels(factorial grid resolution) is validated as an integer in[2, 1000]
File Access
- Scripts read no external files; all inputs are provided via CLI arguments
- Scripts write only to stdout (JSON output); no files are created unless the agent explicitly uses the Write tool
Tool Restrictions
- Read: Used to inspect script source, references, and user data files
- Write: Used to save DOE sample plans, sensitivity rankings, or optimizer recommendations; writes are scoped to the user's working directory
- Grep/Glob: Used to locate relevant files and search references
- The skill's
allowed-toolsexcludesBashto prevent the agent from executing arbitrary commands when processing user-provided parameter names and constraints
Safety Measures
- No
eval(),exec(), or dynamic code generation - All subprocess calls use explicit argument lists (no
shell=True) - Reduced tool surface (no Bash) limits the agent to read/write operations only
- Parameter names are sanitized before use, preventing injection via crafted identifiers
Limitations
- Not for real-time optimization: Scripts provide recommendations, not live optimization loops
- Surrogate is lightweight:
surrogate_builder.pyfits a real 1-D least-squares polynomial (poly) or Gaussian RBF interpolant (rbf) using only the standard library and reports honest residualmse, leave-one-outcv_error, and the dataoutput_variance; for production use scipy/scikit-learn/GPyTorch. Forrbf, in-samplemseis near zero by construction (exact interpolation) — judge fit quality withcv_error - No automatic simulation execution: User must run simulations externally and provide results
References
references/doe_methods.md- Detailed DOE method comparisonreferences/optimizer_selection.md- Optimizer algorithm detailsreferences/sensitivity_guidelines.md- Sensitivity analysis interpretationreferences/surrogate_guidelines.md- Surrogate model selection
Version History
- v1.2.2 (2026-06-24): Added Verification checklist and Common pitfalls & rationalizations sections to drive evidence-based use of the DOE, optimizer, sensitivity, and surrogate scripts
- v1.2.0 (2026-06-23): Real surrogate fits (
polyleast-squares,rbfinterpolation) with honestmse/cv_error/output_variance; explicit factorial--levelswith budget-mismatch warnings; BO dimension cutoff harmonized to dim<=10; corrected Security/Error-Handling/output-field docs to match script behavior - v1.1.0 (2024-12-24): Enhanced documentation, decision guidance, conversational examples
- v1.0.0: Initial release with core scripts
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first.
Related
React Doctor
Your agent writes bad React. This catches it
Browser Use
🌐 Make websites accessible for AI agents. Automate tasks online with ease.
Guizang Ppt Skill
AI-agent Skill for generating polished HTML slide decks: editorial magazine and Swiss layouts, image prompts, social covers, and a WebGL/low-power presentation runtime.
mh install skills/parameter-optimization