计划执行与检查节点
executing-plans
按既定实施计划完成工作,保持过程检查和反馈。
model-migration-plan【效率与协作】Plan the migration of an LLM feature from one model to another without breaking production. Use when a model is being deprecated, a newer model looks better or cheaper, or when asked how to upgrade models safely, run shadow traffic, or set rollback criteria for a model change. Produces a phased migration plan with eval gates, shadow/canary stages, pr…
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
A model swap changes every output of your feature at once. This skill plans the migration like the risky deploy it is: eval first, shadow second, canary third — with numbers, not vibes, deciding each promotion.
Ask for (if not already provided):
prompt-regression-suite) or at minimum golden examples; if none exist, phase 0 is building onePhase 0 — Baseline. Freeze a regression suite against the current model. Without a baseline, "the new model is fine" is unfalsifiable. Record current cost, latency (p50/p95), and quality scores.
Phase 1 — Offline eval. Run the suite against the target model with the prompt as-is, then with adapted prompts. Promotion criteria: pass rate ≥ baseline, no canary failures, cost/latency within budget. Expect to iterate here — most "model regressions" are prompt-fit issues.
Phase 2 — Shadow. Mirror a sample of real traffic to the new model; log, never serve. Compare distributions: refusal rate, output length, format-violation rate, judge scores on a sample. Duration: long enough to cover weekly traffic patterns.
Phase 3 — Canary. Serve the new model to [1-5]% of traffic behind a flag, tagged in analytics. Watch the same metrics plus user-visible signals (regenerate rate, thumbs-down, support tickets). Widen in steps; each step has the same promotion criteria.
Phase 4 — Full cutover + cleanup. 100% traffic, old model kept warm behind the flag for [period], then removed. Update model pins everywhere (including the eval judge if it referenced the old model), and re-baseline the regression suite on the new model.
Between model generations, re-check: instruction-following strictness (newer models often follow the letter, exposing sloppy prompts), format compliance (JSON/markdown habits differ), verbosity defaults, refusal boundaries, tool-calling style, and system-prompt sensitivity. Adapt the prompt per model rather than writing to the lowest common denominator — keep per-model prompt versions if both run simultaneously.
Why now: [driver + deadline]. Blast radius: [traffic, audience, cost of a bad output].
| Phase | Gate to pass | Duration | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 Baseline | suite frozen; cost/latency recorded | ||
| 1 Offline eval | [criteria] | ||
| 2 Shadow | [criteria] | ||
| 3 Canary [x]% → [y]% | [criteria] | ||
| 4 Cutover + cleanup | [criteria] |
Prompt adaptations found/expected: [list]
Rollback: triggers [numbers]; mechanism [flag]; owner [who].
Cost/latency forecast: [current] → [projected], at [traffic].