model-card
Document a deployed ML/AI model so others can use it responsibly. Use when asked to write a model card, document a model's intended use and limitations, or prepare an AI model for review/launch. Produces a complete model card — intended use, training data, evaluation metrics across slices, limitations, ethical considerations, and a deployment checklist.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/model-card && cp -r /tmp/model-card/plugins/pm-ai/skills/model-card ~/.claude/skills/model-cardSKILL.md
# Model Card Skill A model card is the README for a model: what it does, what it was trained and evaluated on, where it works, and — most importantly — where it doesn't. It turns an opaque artifact into something a reviewer, a downstream team, or a regulator can actually assess. Write it *before* launch, not after. ## Required Inputs Ask for these only if they aren't already provided: - **Model name & version**, owner team, and date. - **What it does** — task type (classification, generation, ranking, extraction…) and the decision it informs. - **Intended use & users** — the supported use cases, and explicitly the out-of-scope ones. - **Training data** — sources, size, time range, and known gaps (link a [`dataset-datasheet`](../dataset-datasheet/SKILL.md) if one exists). - **Evaluation** — datasets, metrics, and results, ideally **broken down by subgroup/slice**. - **Known limitations & risks** — failure modes, bias findings, safety concerns. ## Output Format ### Model Card: [name] v[version] **Owner:** [team] · **Date:** [date] · **Status:** [in review / production / deprecated] **1. Overview** — one paragraph: what the model does, the decision it serves, and who uses it. **2. Intended Use** - **In scope:** the use cases this model is validated for. - **Out of scope / do not use for:** explicit prohibited or unvalidated uses (this section prevents the most harm). - **Users:** who is expected to operate or consume it. **3. Training Data** — sources, size, time window, labelling method, and known coverage gaps. **4. Evaluation** - **Metrics:** the primary metric(s) and why they were chosen for this task. - **Overall results:** headline numbers vs. a stated baseline. - **Sliced results:** a table of the key metric across important subgroups (geography, language, device, demographic where appropriate) — surface where performance drops, don't hide it behind an average. | Slice | N | Metric | vs. overall | |---|---|---|---| **5. Limitations & Failure Modes** — concrete situations where it underperforms or should not be trusted. **6. Ethical Considerations & Bias** — fairness findings, sensitive-attribute handling, and mitigations applied. **7. Deployment & Monitoring** — serving constraints (latency/cost), the drift/quality signals you'll watch, and the rollback trigger. ## Quality Checks - [ ] "Out of scope / do not use for" is filled in with specifics — not left blank - [ ] Evaluation is reported **by slice**, not just one global average that hides subgroup harm - [ ] Every metric states the baseline it's measured against - [ ] Limitations describe real, concrete failure situations (not "the model may be imperfect") - [ ] A monitoring signal and an explicit rollback trigger are named ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not report a single aggregate metric and call evaluation done — averages mask the slices where a model fails worst - [ ] Do not leave "intended use" open-ended — an undefined boundary is an invitation to misuse - [ ] Do not omit known biases because they're uncomfortable — an undocumented risk is a worse liability than a documented one - [ ] Do not present accuracy without the class balance / base rate — 95% accuracy on a 95/5 split is meaningless - [ ] Do not ship without a monitoring plan — a model card without a rollback trigger is a snapshot, not a contract ## Based On Model Cards for Model Reporting (Mitchell et al., 2019) and the model-documentation practice used in responsible-AI reviews.
Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with a risk tier score, pre-deployment checklist, and prioritised mitigations.
Structure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests and interpret experiment results. Use when asked to design an experiment, run an A/B test, calculate sample size, interpret test results, or assess whether an experiment was successful. Produces a complete experiment design with hypothesis, sample size, run time, success criteria, and risk flags — or a results interpretation with ship/iterate/kill recommendation.
Synthesises user signals from multiple research sources into a unified, weighted insight brief. Use when you have data from interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, or sales calls and need to reconcile contradictions, surface the underlying need behind requests, or answer 'what are users really telling us'. Produces ranked insights with confidence ratings, source weighting rationale, divergent signal analysis by user segment, and a research gap identification section.
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions.
Structure a retention analysis, churn investigation, or engagement deep-dive for any product team. Use when asked to analyse user retention, investigate churn, measure DAU/MAU, or build a retention improvement plan. Produces a retention snapshot with root cause hypotheses, aha-moment correlation, and prioritised interventions.