Simulation validator
Skill BioTender-max/awesome-bio-agent-skills/skills/openclaw/simulation-validator
A curated collection of AI agent skills for biomedical research, covering genomics, proteomics, single-cell analysis, clinical AI, and protein design.
npx -y skills add BioTender-max/awesome-bio-agent-skills --skill simulation-validatorAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Validate simulations before, during, and after execution. Use for pre-flight checks, runtime monitoring, post-run validation, diagnosing failed simulations, checking convergence, detecting NaN/Inf, or verifying mass/energy conservation.
SKILL.md
6.4 KB, ~1.5k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Simulation Validator
Goal
Provide a three-stage validation protocol: pre-flight checks, runtime monitoring, and post-flight validation for materials simulations.
Requirements
- Python 3.8+
- No external dependencies (uses Python standard library only)
- Works on Linux, macOS, and Windows
Inputs to Gather
Before running validation scripts, collect from the user:
| Input | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Config file | Simulation configuration (JSON/YAML) | simulation.json |
| Log file | Runtime output log | simulation.log |
| Metrics file | Post-run metrics (JSON) | results.json |
| Required params | Parameters that must exist | dt,dx,kappa |
| Valid ranges | Parameter bounds | dt:1e-6:1e-2 |
Decision Guidance
When to Run Each Stage
Is simulation about to start?
├── YES → Run Stage 1: preflight_checker.py
│ └── BLOCK status? → Fix issues, do NOT run simulation
│ └── WARN status? → Review warnings, document if accepted
│ └── PASS status? → Proceed to run simulation
│
Is simulation running?
├── YES → Run Stage 2: runtime_monitor.py (periodically)
│ └── Alerts? → Consider stopping, check parameters
│
Has simulation finished?
├── YES → Run Stage 3: result_validator.py
│ └── Failed checks? → Do NOT use results
│ → Run failure_diagnoser.py
│ └── All passed? → Results are valid
Choosing Validation Thresholds
| Metric | Conservative | Standard | Relaxed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass tolerance | 1e-6 | 1e-3 | 1e-2 |
| Residual growth | 2x | 10x | 100x |
| dt reduction | 10x | 100x | 1000x |
Script Outputs (JSON Fields)
| Script | Output Fields |
|---|---|
scripts/preflight_checker.py | report.status, report.blockers, report.warnings |
scripts/runtime_monitor.py | alerts, residual_stats, dt_stats |
scripts/result_validator.py | checks, confidence_score, failed_checks |
scripts/failure_diagnoser.py | probable_causes, recommended_fixes |
Three-Stage Validation Protocol
Stage 1: Pre-flight (Before Simulation)
- Run
scripts/preflight_checker.py --config simulation.json - BLOCK status: Stop immediately, fix all blocker issues
- WARN status: Review warnings, document accepted risks
- PASS status: Proceed to simulation
python3 scripts/preflight_checker.py \
--config simulation.json \
--required dt,dx,kappa \
--ranges "dt:1e-6:1e-2,dx:1e-4:1e-1" \
--min-free-gb 1.0 \
--json
Stage 2: Runtime (During Simulation)
- Run
scripts/runtime_monitor.py --log simulation.logperiodically - Configure alert thresholds based on problem type
- Stop simulation if critical alerts appear
python3 scripts/runtime_monitor.py \
--log simulation.log \
--residual-growth 10.0 \
--dt-drop 100.0 \
--json
Stage 3: Post-flight (After Simulation)
- Run
scripts/result_validator.py --metrics results.json - All checks PASS: Results are valid for analysis
- Any check FAIL: Do NOT use results, diagnose failure
python3 scripts/result_validator.py \
--metrics results.json \
--bound-min 0.0 \
--bound-max 1.0 \
--mass-tol 1e-3 \
--json
Failure Diagnosis
When validation fails:
python3 scripts/failure_diagnoser.py --log simulation.log --json
Conversational Workflow Example
User: My phase field simulation crashed after 1000 steps. Can you help me figure out why?
Agent workflow:
- First, check the log for obvious errors:
python3 scripts/failure_diagnoser.py --log simulation.log --json - If diagnosis suggests numerical blow-up, check runtime stats:
python3 scripts/runtime_monitor.py --log simulation.log --json - Recommend fixes based on findings:
- If residual grew rapidly → reduce time step
- If dt collapsed → check stability conditions
- If NaN detected → check initial conditions
Error Handling
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
Config not found | File path invalid | Verify config path exists |
Non-numeric value | Parameter is not a number | Fix config file format |
out of range | Parameter outside bounds | Adjust parameter or bounds |
Output directory not writable | Permission issue | Check directory permissions |
Insufficient disk space | Disk nearly full | Free up space or reduce output |
Interpretation Guidance
Status Meanings
| Status | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| PASS | All checks passed | Proceed with confidence |
| WARN | Non-critical issues found | Review and document |
| BLOCK | Critical issues found | Must fix before proceeding |
Confidence Score Interpretation
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1.0 | All validation checks passed |
| 0.75+ | Most checks passed, minor issues |
| 0.5-0.75 | Significant issues, review carefully |
| < 0.5 | Major problems, do not trust results |
Common Failure Patterns
| Pattern in Log | Likely Cause | Recommended Fix |
|---|---|---|
| NaN, Inf, overflow | Numerical instability | Reduce dt, increase damping |
| max iterations, did not converge | Solver failure | Tune preconditioner, tolerances |
| out of memory | Memory exhaustion | Reduce mesh, enable out-of-core |
| dt reduced | Adaptive stepping triggered | May be okay if controlled |
Limitations
- Not a real-time monitor: Scripts analyze logs after-the-fact
- Regex-based: Log parsing depends on pattern matching; may miss unusual formats
- No automatic fixes: Scripts diagnose but don't modify simulations
References
references/validation_protocol.md- Detailed checklist and criteriareferences/log_patterns.md- Common failure signatures and regex patterns
Version History
- v1.1.0 (2024-12-24): Enhanced documentation, decision guidance, Windows compatibility
- v1.0.0: Initial release with 4 validation scripts
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in ~1.5k tokens
Counted across 1,195 of the 2,094 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- read the output and check the exit codein 55 of 1195, across 14 files
- verify requirements using a line-by-line checklistin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
- identify the verification command proving the claimin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
- run the full verification commandin 51 of 1195, across 11 files
- verify output confirms the claimin 49 of 1195, across 10 files
- check version control diff after agent delegationin 45 of 1195, across 5 files
- state claim with evidencein 43 of 1195, across 3 files
- run the test suitein 32 of 1195, across 24 files
- keep state in memory by defaultin 27 of 1195, across 6 files
- make prototype runnable with one commandin 26 of 1195, across 5 files
- detect the package manager from lockfilesin 24 of 1195, across 5 files
- produce a verification reportin 23 of 1195, across 12 files
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.