agentleFS
confident-aiconfident-ai/eval-skills/skills/eval-discover/SKILL.md

eval-discover

Skill11 starsChanged 44 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Find realistic AI application examples and conduct human-led trace review to discover failure modes. Use before inventing quality metrics; supports managed review or an AI-built local annotation UI.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the operating agreement, data sourcing, and the selected surface: managed or local review.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    After several human-reviewed records establish a category, optionally delegate one category per background analyzer to find candidates.

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not monitor indefinitely or claim a background watcher persists after the session ends.

    line 30

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Discover failures with a human

Read the operating agreement, data sourcing, and the selected surface: managed or local review.

For bundled local tools and exact commands, read toolkit setup. Run the workspace installer for this skill; it preserves existing customized files.

Assemble evidence

Reuse existing traces and review notes. Seek production examples, complaints/incidents, support tickets, expert examples, and targeted synthetic variations in that order as practical. Ask about unresolved source access and retainability before pulling content. Inspect one real execution before a new managed connection.

Create a diverse discovery sample. Include ordinary traffic and random exploration alongside difficult examples; cluster only when it helps. Explain which dimensions the sample covers and which it misses. Fifteen to twenty-five examples can start a review, but stop/grow based on discovery saturation and domain breadth, not a universal count.

Review loop

  1. Show full behavior in its natural form, not a raw JSON cell. Start with open-ended notes: what went wrong, what should have happened, and why it matters.
  2. Save human observations immediately with stable annotation and trace IDs. Note provisional themes to guide further sampling; defer taxonomy consolidation and assignment review to the error-analysis stage.
  3. Alternate breadth (new task types) and depth (more instances of a known failure). Revisit earlier examples when the meaning of failure changes.
  4. After several human-reviewed records establish a category, optionally delegate one category per background analyzer to find candidates. Without delegation, scan sequentially. Reviewers accept or dismiss suggestions; suggestions never become human ground truth automatically.
  5. Track confirmed versus suggested findings, reviewed coverage, and new-category discovery. Pause when further review mostly repeats known categories, then propose the next missing coverage or curation step.

Do not monitor indefinitely or claim a background watcher persists after the session ends. Local autosave must work independently of the agent. Resume from saved annotations and revision IDs on the next turn.

Exit artifact

Deliver the reviewed sample, durable human notes, provisional themes, and coverage gaps linked to source traces. Separate discovery counts from prevalence estimates. Use eval-error-analysis when installed to consolidate annotations into a reviewed failure taxonomy; otherwise describe that next outcome using the saved evidence. Confirm failure definitions before creating graders.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.