Review public claims about xai-org/x-algorithm, the X For You algorithm, Phoenix, Grox, Home Mixer, engagement weights, filters, ads blending, or viral algor...
编程
Open Feed Recsys Reviewer
试用Review open feed recommendation repositories with source-backed evidence, artifact-readiness checks, and cautious architecture summaries. Use when a user ask...
它能做什么
Review open feed recommendation repositories with source-backed evidence, artifact-readiness checks, and cautious architecture summaries. Use when a user ask...
技能文档
Open Feed Recsys Lab
Use this skill to review public feed recommendation repositories and separate what the source supports from what remains unproven.
Default target: https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm.
Review Workflow
- Confirm the target repository, commit, public link, or user-provided file set.
- Build an evidence ledger with repository/ref, files inspected, supported claims, weak claims, and open questions.
- Separate source inspection from runnable-model proof. If Phoenix artifacts are missing, say execution is not verified.
- Map the visible architecture: Home Mixer, Phoenix retrieval/ranking, Thunder, Grox, ads blending, and candidate pipelines when present.
- Treat public algorithm claims as hypotheses. Mark each claim
supported,partly_supported,unsupported, ornot_public_repo. - Frame shareable output around reproducibility and evidence. Do not present the public source as a reach predictor or full live-platform clone.
Phoenix Artifact Readiness
Only treat Phoenix execution as verified after the official artifacts are present and the user has supplied a local run result. The expected extracted directory is:
phoenix/artifacts/oss-phoenix-artifacts/
Expected files include:
retrieval/model_params.npzretrieval/embedding_tables.npzretrieval/config.jsonranker/model_params.npzranker/embedding_tables.npzranker/config.jsonsports_corpus.npzexample_sequence.json
If the report says Phoenix is not run-ready, state that source inspection succeeded but execution is blocked by missing extracted LFS artifacts.
Boundaries
- Use public source or user-provided local files only.
- Do not request or inspect private user data, authenticated account pages, or non-public analytics.
- Do not promise reach, ranking, virality, revenue, or live-platform equivalence.
- Do not claim that public source contains every production weight, threshold, model version, or serving rule.
- Do not execute repository code or delete local files as part of a review unless the user separately asks for that engineering work.
Output Shape
Return a concise review with:
Target: repo, ref, and source date when known.Supported: claims backed by public source.Blocked: missing artifacts, missing configs, or live-platform gaps.Architecture: short component map.Risks: overclaims, ambiguous evidence, or unsafe product positioning.Next check: the smallest concrete verification step.
The preferred public-safe framing is:
I verified the open X For You algorithm locally at commit ; here is the report.
Companion Skills
Use x-algo-claim-auditor when the user asks whether a public claim, screenshot text, or viral thread is supported by the source.
Use tinytroupe-feed-research-lab when the user asks to compare draft posts, simulate audience reactions, or pretest a post before publishing. Keep that work labeled as synthetic audience research, not source verification or reach prediction.
相关技能
Build custom peer-review skills for specific research areas, problem families, and method combinations using OpenReview evidence. Use when Codex needs a comp...
Automatically review latest Alibaba Cloud product docs and OpenAPI docs by product name, then output detailed prioritized improvement suggestions with eviden...
Jointly analyze a research paper and its open-source implementation. Use when a user wants to understand a paper through code, map theory/formulas/algorithms...
Run bounded synthetic audience research for draft posts and X-style feed experiments inspired by TinyTroupe and public xai-org/x-algorithm architecture. Use...
Review messy specs, policies, and handoff notes with source-linked findings instead of vague rewrite advice.