agentic-eval
Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs. Use this skill when: - Implementing self-critique and reflection loops - Building evaluator-optimizer pipelines for quality-critical generation - Creating test-driven code refinement workflows - Designing rubric-based or LLM-as-judge evaluation systems - Adding iterative improvement to agent outputs (code, reports, analysis) - Measuring and improving agent response quality
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 3 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
3
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 64
Key insight: Use structured JSON output for reliable parsing of critique results.
- Common: line 104
Test-driven refinement loop for code generation.
- Common: line 133
Use LLM to compare and rank outputs.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Agentic Evaluation Patterns
Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.
Overview
Evaluation patterns enable agents to assess and improve their own outputs, moving beyond single-shot generation to iterative refinement loops.
Generate → Evaluate → Critique → Refine → Output
↑ │
└──────────────────────────────┘When to Use
- Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy
- Tasks with clear evaluation criteria: Defined success metrics exist
- Content requiring specific standards: Style guides, compliance, formatting
Pattern 1: Basic Reflection
Agent evaluates and improves its own output through self-critique.
def reflect_and_refine(task: str, criteria: list[str], max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
"""Generate with reflection loop."""
output = llm(f"Complete this task:\n{task}")
for i in range(max_iterations):
# Self-critique
critique = llm(f"""
Evaluate this output against criteria: {criteria}
Output: {output}
Rate each: PASS/FAIL with feedback as JSON.
""")
critique_data = json.loads(critique)
all_pass = all(c["status"] == "PASS" for c in critique_data.values())
if all_pass:
return output
# Refine based on critique
failed = {k: v["feedback"] for k, v in critique_data.items() if v["status"] == "FAIL"}
output = llm(f"Improve to address: {failed}\nOriginal: {output}")
return outputKey insight: Use structured JSON output for reliable parsing of critique results.
Pattern 2: Evaluator-Optimizer
Separate generation and evaluation into distinct components for clearer responsibilities.
class EvaluatorOptimizer:
def __init__(self, score_threshold: float = 0.8):
self.score_threshold = score_threshold
def generate(self, task: str) -> str:
return llm(f"Complete: {task}")
def evaluate(self, output: str, task: str) -> dict:
return json.loads(llm(f"""
Evaluate output for task: {task}
Output: {output}
Return JSON: {{"overall_score": 0-1, "dimensions": {{"accuracy": ..., "clarity": ...}}}}
"""))
def optimize(self, output: str, feedback: dict) -> str:
return llm(f"Improve based on feedback: {feedback}\nOutput: {output}")
def run(self, task: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
output = self.generate(task)
for _ in range(max_iterations):
evaluation = self.evaluate(output, task)
if evaluation["overall_score"] >= self.score_threshold:
break
output = self.optimize(output, evaluation)
return outputPattern 3: Code-Specific Reflection
Test-driven refinement loop for code generation.
class CodeReflector:
def reflect_and_fix(self, spec: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
code = llm(f"Write Python code for: {spec}")
tests = llm(f"Generate pytest tests for: {spec}\nCode: {code}")
for _ in range(max_iterations):
result = run_tests(code, tests)
if result["success"]:
return code
code = llm(f"Fix error: {result['error']}\nCode: {code}")
return codeEvaluation Strategies
Outcome-Based
Evaluate whether output achieves the expected result.
def evaluate_outcome(task: str, output: str, expected: str) -> str:
return llm(f"Does output achieve expected outcome? Task: {task}, Expected: {expected}, Output: {output}")LLM-as-Judge
Use LLM to compare and rank outputs.
def llm_judge(output_a: str, output_b: str, criteria: str) -> str:
return llm(f"Compare outputs A and B for {criteria}. Which is better and why?")Rubric-Based
Score outputs against weighted dimensions.
RUBRIC = {
"accuracy": {"weight": 0.4},
"clarity": {"weight": 0.3},
"completeness": {"weight": 0.3}
}
def evaluate_with_rubric(output: str, rubric: dict) -> float:
scores = json.loads(llm(f"Rate 1-5 for each dimension: {list(rubric.keys())}\nOutput: {output}"))
return sum(scores[d] * rubric[d]["weight"] for d in rubric) / 5Best Practices
| Practice | Rationale |
| Clear criteria | Define specific, measurable evaluation criteria upfront |
| Iteration limits | Set max iterations (3-5) to prevent infinite loops |
| Convergence check | Stop if output score isn't improving between iterations |
| Log history | Keep full trajectory for debugging and analysis |
| Structured output | Use JSON for reliable parsing of evaluation results |
Quick Start Checklist
## Evaluation Implementation Checklist
### Setup
- [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric
- [ ] Set score threshold for "good enough"
- [ ] Configure max iterations (default: 3)
### Implementation
- [ ] Implement generate() function
- [ ] Implement evaluate() function with structured output
- [ ] Implement optimize() function
- [ ] Wire up the refinement loop
### Safety
- [ ] Add convergence detection
- [ ] Log all iterations for debugging
- [ ] Handle evaluation parse failures gracefullyTrending
Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 4
- github/awesome-copilot★ 41k100% same
- miptah21/skills★ 2100% same
- ReaperOAK/ForgeOS★ 0100% same
- uaaps/uaaps_docs★ 0100% same
Edited · 3
- junevm/splathash★ 208100% same
- PracticalSwan/agent-skills★ 2260% same
- eggboy/skills★ 030% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository112 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-memorySkill
- agent-reachSkill
- agent-team-orchestrationSkill
- claude-apiSkill
- context-engineering-collectionSkill
- developer-growth-analysisSkill
- eval-harnessSkill
- exa-searchSkill
- langsmith-fetchSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- prompt-engineering-patternsSkill
- rag-implementationSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- api-design-principlesSkill
- architecture-patternsSkill
- artifacts-builderSkill
- backend-patternsSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- clean-content-fetchSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- computer-useSkill
- debug-proSkill
- docker-essentialsSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- frontend-patternsSkill
- git-essentialsSkill
- microservices-patternsSkill
- modern-javascript-patternsSkill
- nextjs-app-router-patternsSkill
- postgresql-table-designSkill
- python-design-patternsSkill
- python-performance-optimizationSkill
- python-testing-patternsSkill
- react-state-managementSkill
- security-auditorSkill
- sql-toolkitSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- typescript-advanced-typesSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- vue-best-practicesSkill
- webapp-testingSkill
- algorithmic-artSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- canvas-designSkill
- comic-creatorSkill
- cover-imageSkill
- doc-coauthoringSkill
- docxSkill
- fal-ai-mediaSkill
- frontend-slidesSkill
- image-genSkill
- markdown-to-htmlSkill
- pdfSkill
- pptxSkill
- slide-deckSkill
- slidevSkill
- theme-factorySkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

