Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Audit label quality using confident learning (Northcutt et al.), cross-validation noise detection, and per-class error analysis. Identifies mislabeled examples for review.
.claude/skills/mkurman-label-quality-audit/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 34% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -11% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 38% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -12% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 7% | 0% |
Label noise is the most insidious data quality problem — it's invisible until the model learns the wrong thing. Confident learning (Northcutt et al., 2021) identifies likely mislabeled examples using out-of-sample predicted probabilities.
Use when: training data labels come from crowd workers, automated systems, or weak supervision. Do not use on expert-validated reference data unless auditing for drift.
pythonimport numpy as np from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_predict from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier def confident_learning_audit(X, y, n_folds=5): """ Returns indices of likely mislabeled examples. Based on Northcutt et al. "Confident Learning: Estimating Uncertainty in Dataset Labels" (JMLR 2021). """ n_classes = len(np.unique(y)) # 1. Out-of-sample predicted probabilities proba = cross_val_predict( RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, random_state=42), X, y, cv=n_folds, method="predict_proba" ) # 2. Compute confident joint # Estimated joint distribution of noisy labels × true labels confident_joint = np.zeros((n_classes, n_classes)) for i in range(len(y)): true_class = y[i] pred_class = np.argmax(proba[i]) confidence = proba[i][pred_class] # Count if predicted class has confidence above per-class threshold class_threshold = np.percentile(proba[:, pred_class], 70) if confidence > class_threshold: confident_joint[true_class][pred_class] += 1 # 3. Find label issues: examples where predicted ≠ given AND confident issues = [] per_class_thresholds = { k: np.percentile(proba[:, k], 70) for k in range(n_classes) } for i in range(len(y)): pred_class = np.argmax(proba[i]) if (pred_class != y[i] and proba[i][pred_class] > per_class_thresholds[pred_class]): issues.append(i) # 4. Per-class noise estimates noise_rates = {} for k in range(n_classes): n_in_class = np.sum(y == k) n_noisy = np.sum((np.array(issues) != y[np.array(issues)]) & (y[np.array(issues) == k])) noise_rates[k] = n_noisy / n_in_class if n_in_class > 0 else 0 return { "issue_indices": issues, "n_issues": len(issues), "issue_fraction": len(issues) / len(y), "noise_rates": noise_rates, "confident_joint": confident_joint, }
| Class | Total | Mislabeled | Noise Rate | Action | |------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | High noise class | N | M | > 0.10 | Review annotation guidelines | | Medium noise | N | M | 0.05-0.10 | Spot-check 50 examples | | Low noise | N | M | < 0.05 | OK |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 19,946 | 19,240 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,033 | 4,725 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 16,964 | 18,450 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,594 | 4,779 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 21,290 | 18,431 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,061 | 4,599 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 16,425 | 13,474 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,600 | 3,175 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 15,444 | 13,708 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,664 | 3,525 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 15,352 | 16,194 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,468 | 3,614 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 17,675 | 14,032 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,498 | 3,347 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 16,706 | 13,477 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,825 | 3,279 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 8,237 | 2,101 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,352 | 1,210 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 12,836 | 11,163 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,979 | 2,732 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 11,993 | 9,247 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,884 | 2,414 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 11,242 | 3,304 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,745 | 1,529 | -12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 7,101 | 2,796 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,380 | 1,345 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 14,553 | 9,834 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,304 | 2,470 | +7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 15,605 | 16,972 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,567 | 3,513 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 9,994 | 7,296 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,880 | 2,182 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 15,211 | 13,309 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,289 | 2,981 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 7,173 | 2,934 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,192 | 1,424 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 12,380 | 3,441 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,015 | 1,530 | -24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 13,132 | 10,588 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,561 | 2,994 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 15,228 | 6,347 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,242 | 1,970 | -12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 4,803 | 2,870 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 723 | 1,390 | +92% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +23 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.