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

eval-maintain

Skill11 starsChanged 44 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Maintain trusted AI evaluations through CI regression checks, production feedback, dataset refresh, and grader recalibration. Use after a baseline exists; not generic deployment or security scanning.

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, maintenance guide, and managed workflows when applicable.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Create a small representative suite plus known-failure regressions.

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    After model, prompt, tool, retrieval, or audience changes, inspect fresh traces for new failure types.

    line 35

≈ “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

Keep evaluation useful after the first run

Read the operating agreement, maintenance guide, and managed workflows when applicable.

For bundled local tools and exact commands, read toolkit setup. Run the workspace installer for this skill; it preserves existing customized files. For the managed route, use concrete service operations after confirming the connected schema.

Establish ownership

Identify the existing CI, release process, production observability, reviewer, and baseline. Reuse them. Agree on which failures block a release, which merely flag review, and how infrastructure errors are handled. A failed request is never a silent passing check.

Regression checks

Create a small representative suite plus known-failure regressions. Pin cases, grader versions, app configuration, and independent confirmation rules. Separate fast deterministic checks from slower paid evaluation. Expose skipped or missing-credential runs rather than reporting a pass.

For managed PR workflows, inspect current Confident Actions setup and generated callback/workflow. Confirm it invokes the actual app and reports the intended check. For local workflows use the project's CI and runner, with credentials kept in its secret store. Do not expose paid secrets to untrusted pull-request code.

Production feedback

Define sampling policy and population before measuring rates. Include random normal traffic alongside complaints and failure-triggered samples. Use trace/thread identity to link user feedback, human labels, and resulting regression cases.

Managed users reuse hosted review and monitoring. Local users reuse a collector, scheduled export, or existing job system; do not create an always-on agent loop unless requested. New recurring work requires an agreed cadence and notification policy.

Refresh

After model, prompt, tool, retrieval, or audience changes, inspect fresh traces for new failure types. Preserve a stable regression suite and version a refreshed representative suite. Revalidate judges against new expert labels and rerun baselines when criteria change.

Alert on actionable thresholds with ownership, minimum sample sizes, error context, and deduplication. Do not confuse provider failures with application quality drift.

Deliver

Provide the verified CI command/check, sampling and alert policy, owner, versioned evidence locations, and next review trigger. State what has actually been enabled versus merely documented. Never silently deploy a candidate or start a recurring paid job.

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.