scikit-survival
A comprehensive toolkit for survival analysis and time-to-event modeling in Python using scikit-survival; use it when you need to model censored time-to-event outcomes, fit Cox/RSF/GB models or Survival SVMs, evaluate with C-index/Brier score, or handle competing risks.
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The archived review kept this workflow anchored to supplied data fields and observable execution behavior, not fabricated results. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | Practice boundaries held because the package remained focused on A comprehensive toolkit for survival analysis and time-to-event modeling in Python using... rather than overclaiming what the records supported. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | Methodological grounding was preserved through the documented inputs, transformations, and expected artifacts. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The archived review preserved a usable code path with named scripts, expected inputs, and a recognizable output contract. |
Core Capability84 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 86.6 / 100 — Assertions: 20/20 Passed
This canonical case stayed within the packaged analysis boundary and kept a reviewable task contract.
Survival target construction via sksurv.util.Surv (arrays or DataFrame) remained tied to the documented analysis contract even when the preserved evidence centered on instructions instead of a full rerun.
Survival target construction via sksurv.util.Surv (arrays or DataFrame) remained tied to the documented analysis contract even when the preserved evidence centered on instructions instead of a full rerun.
The archived run treated Model families as a bounded analysis workflow rather than a purely narrative instruction path.
This stress case stayed within the packaged analysis boundary and kept a reviewable task contract.
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Data Analysis with execution mode A
- Static quality score is 84/100 and dynamic average is 78.6/100
- Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review
- Execution verification summary: No script verification was applicable