vision-regression-eval
Skill1 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub
Compare mq-image-analyze model, backend or prompt changes on the same reference images with traceable outputs. Use for "blev den nya modellen sämre", "jämför vision-backends", or "utvärdera promptändringen"; exclude pixel-only screenshot regression and model installation.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- cli-maintainerSkill
- docs-maintainerSkill
- image-quality-auditSkill
- json-contract-maintainerSkill
- mcp-tools-maintainerSkill
- model-setup-maintainerSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- repo-awareSkill
- reverse-promptSkill
- screenshot-ui-reviewSkill
- visual-architecture-analysisSkill
- visual-reasoningSkill
- web-ui-maintainerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 15
Read current provider code and CLI help for supported modes, model defaults, flags and output contracts.
- Distinctive: line 20
Use the same authorized images for baseline and candidate.
- Distinctive: line 34
Keep missing responses, unavailable backends and timeouts visible.
- Distinctive: line 40
Do not invent confidence scores, thresholds or benchmark results.
- Distinctive: line 45
Use local authorized inputs by default.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Vision Regression Eval
Evaluate semantic perception changes using controlled inputs. This skill is
for comparing outputs, not installing models or granting permission for cloud
calls. Pixel/OCR screenshot regression already exists in mq-image regress;
it does not measure whether a vision model's interpretation is correct.
Establish the comparison
Read current provider code and CLI help for supported modes, model defaults,
flags and output contracts. Start with
mq_image_analyze/vision/semantic/provider.py and its provider tests. Do not
copy model names from old memory or assume a benchmark command exists.
Use the same authorized images for baseline and candidate. Record image hashes, source revision, mode, exact model identifier, prompt/settings and runtime metadata exposed by the provider. Freeze preprocessing and task instructions; change only the variable under evaluation where possible.
Agree on the task-specific criteria before examining candidate results: object presence, OCR accuracy, spatial relations, unsupported claims, schema validity, latency or resource usage as appropriate. Operator-supplied labels are ground truth; AI-drafted labels require operator confirmation and must be marked accordingly. A schema-valid response is not proof of factual accuracy.
Run and interpret
- Save paired raw outputs and errors in a scratch directory with provenance. Keep missing responses, unavailable backends and timeouts visible.
- For nondeterministic providers, use a bounded repeat count and disclose it. Separate measured timing from estimates and note warm-up/cache differences.
- Present per-image differences and the common evaluated population before aggregates. Do not compare averages across different input sets or hide failed cases by silently dropping them.
- Do not invent confidence scores, thresholds or benchmark results. If no confirmed labels exist, report a qualitative comparison and its limits.
- Report recommendations separately from observed changes. Preserve baselines; changing production defaults or accepting a new baseline is a separate action.
Use local authorized inputs by default. Send images to cloud providers only within the user's authorized scope. Do not download weights or modify production evidence stores to complete an evaluation.
Evals
- "Compare old and new models on these diagrams" → use this skill.
- "Evaluate a prompt change on the same screenshots" → use this skill.
- "Find moved buttons between screenshot folders" → existing regress workflow.
- "Doctor cannot find the model" → model-setup-maintainer.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
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.

