| name | Fine-Tuning Assistant |
| slug | fine-tuning-assistant |
| description | Guide model fine-tuning processes for customized AI performance |
| category | ai-ml |
| complexity | advanced |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | ID8Labs |
| triggers | fine-tune model, fine-tuning, customize LLM, train custom model, adapt model |
| tags | fine-tuning, training, customization, LLM, machine-learning |
Fine-Tuning Assistant
The Fine-Tuning Assistant skill guides you through the process of adapting pre-trained models to your specific use case. Fine-tuning can dramatically improve model performance on specialized tasks, teach models your preferred style, and add capabilities that prompting alone cannot achieve.
This skill covers when to fine-tune versus prompt engineer, preparing training data, selecting base models, configuring training parameters, evaluating results, and deploying fine-tuned models. It applies modern techniques including LoRA, QLoRA, and instruction tuning to make fine-tuning practical and cost-effective.
Whether you are fine-tuning GPT models via API, running local training with open-source models, or using platforms like Hugging Face, this skill ensures you approach fine-tuning strategically and effectively.
Core Workflows
Workflow 1: Decide Whether to Fine-Tune
- Assess the problem:
- Can prompting achieve the goal?
- Is the task format or style consistent?
- Do you have quality training data?
- Is this worth the investment?
- Compare approaches:
Approach When to Use Investment Better prompts First attempt, variable tasks Low Few-shot examples Consistent format, limited data Low RAG Knowledge-intensive, dynamic data Medium Fine-tuning Consistent style, specialized task High - Evaluate requirements:
- Minimum 100-1000 quality examples
- Clear evaluation criteria
- Budget for training and hosting
- Decision: Fine-tune only if prompting/RAG insufficient
Workflow 2: Prepare Fine-Tuning Dataset
- Collect training examples:
- Representative of target use case
- High quality (no errors in outputs)
- Diverse coverage of task variations
- Format for training:
{"messages": [ {"role": "system", "content": "You are a helpful assistant..."}, {"role": "user", "content": "User input here"}, {"role": "assistant", "content": "Ideal response here"} ]} - Quality assurance:
- Review sample of examples manually
- Check for consistency in style/format
- Remove duplicates and low-quality entries
- Split train/validation/test sets
- Validate dataset format
Workflow 3: Execute Fine-Tuning
- Select base model:
- Consider size vs capability tradeoff
- Match model to task complexity
- Check licensing for your use case
- Configure training:
# OpenAI fine-tuning training_config = { "model": "gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18", "training_file": "file-xxx", "hyperparameters": { "n_epochs": 3, "batch_size": "auto", "learning_rate_multiplier": "auto" } } # LoRA fine-tuning (local) lora_config = { "r": 16, # Rank "lora_alpha": 32, "lora_dropout": 0.05, "target_modules": ["q_proj", "v_proj"] } - Monitor training:
- Watch loss curves
- Check for overfitting
- Validate on held-out set
- Evaluate results:
- Compare to baseline model
- Test on diverse inputs
- Check for regressions
Quick Reference
| Action | Command/Trigger |
|---|---|
| Decide approach | "Should I fine-tune for [task]" |
| Prepare data | "Format data for fine-tuning" |
| Choose model | "Which model to fine-tune for [task]" |
| Configure training | "Fine-tuning parameters for [goal]" |
| Evaluate results | "Evaluate fine-tuned model" |
| Debug training | "Fine-tuning loss not decreasing" |
Best Practices
Start with Prompting: Fine-tuning is expensive; exhaust cheaper options first
- Can better prompts achieve 80% of the goal?
- Try few-shot examples in the prompt
- Consider RAG for knowledge tasks
Quality Over Quantity: 100 excellent examples beat 10,000 mediocre ones
- Each example should be a gold standard
- Better to have humans verify examples
- Remove anything you wouldn't want the model to learn
Match Format to Use Case: Training examples should mirror real usage
- Same prompt structure as production
- Realistic input variations
- Cover edge cases explicitly
Don't Over-Train: More epochs isn't always better
- Watch validation loss for overfitting
- Start with 1-3 epochs
- Early stopping when validation plateaus
Evaluate Properly: Training loss isn't the goal
- Use held-out test set
- Compare to baseline on same tests
- Check for capability regressions
- Test on edge cases explicitly
Version Everything: Fine-tuning is iterative
- Version your training data
- Track experiment configurations
- Document what worked and what didn't
Advanced Techniques
LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation)
Efficient fine-tuning for large models:
from peft import LoraConfig, get_peft_model
lora_config = LoraConfig(
r=16, # Rank of update matrices
lora_alpha=32, # Scaling factor
target_modules=["q_proj", "v_proj", "k_proj", "o_proj"],
lora_dropout=0.05,
bias="none",
task_type="CAUSAL_LM"
)
# Apply LoRA to base model
model = get_peft_model(base_model, lora_config)
# Only ~0.1% of parameters are trainable
trainable_params = sum(p.numel() for p in model.parameters() if p.requires_grad)
QLoRA (Quantized LoRA)
Fine-tune large models on consumer hardware:
from transformers import BitsAndBytesConfig
bnb_config = BitsAndBytesConfig(
load_in_4bit=True,
bnb_4bit_quant_type="nf4",
bnb_4bit_compute_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
bnb_4bit_use_double_quant=True
)
# Load model in 4-bit
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
"meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf",
quantization_config=bnb_config
)
# Apply LoRA on top
model = get_peft_model(model, lora_config)
Instruction Tuning Dataset Creation
Convert raw data to instruction format:
def create_instruction_example(raw_data):
return {
"messages": [
{
"role": "system",
"content": "You are a customer service agent for TechCorp..."
},
{
"role": "user",
"content": f"Customer inquiry: {raw_data['inquiry']}"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": raw_data['ideal_response']
}
]
}
# Apply to dataset
instruction_dataset = [create_instruction_example(d) for d in raw_dataset]
Evaluation Framework
Comprehensive assessment of fine-tuned models:
def evaluate_fine_tuned_model(model, test_set, baseline_model=None):
results = {
"task_accuracy": [],
"format_compliance": [],
"style_match": [],
"regression_check": []
}
for example in test_set:
output = model.generate(example.input)
# Task-specific accuracy
results["task_accuracy"].append(
check_correctness(output, example.expected)
)
# Format compliance
results["format_compliance"].append(
matches_expected_format(output)
)
# Style matching (for style transfer tasks)
results["style_match"].append(
style_similarity(output, example.expected)
)
# Regression on general capabilities
if baseline_model:
results["regression_check"].append(
compare_general_capability(model, baseline_model, example)
)
return {k: np.mean(v) for k, v in results.items()}
Curriculum Learning
Order training data by difficulty:
def create_curriculum(dataset):
# Score examples by complexity
scored = [(score_complexity(ex), ex) for ex in dataset]
scored.sort(key=lambda x: x[0])
# Create epochs with increasing difficulty
n = len(scored)
curriculum = {
"epoch_1": [ex for _, ex in scored[:n//3]], # Easy
"epoch_2": [ex for _, ex in scored[:2*n//3]], # Easy + Medium
"epoch_3": [ex for _, ex in scored], # All
}
return curriculum
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Fine-tuning when better prompting would suffice
- Using low-quality or inconsistent training examples
- Not holding out a proper test set
- Training for too many epochs (overfitting)
- Ignoring capability regressions from fine-tuning
- Not versioning training data and configurations
- Expecting fine-tuning to add factual knowledge (use RAG instead)
- Fine-tuning on data that doesn't match production use