coval-eval-start
Skill3 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub
Choose the next useful step for evaluating a voice or chat agent with Coval. Use for getting started or deciding what to do next; use a specific skill directly when the task is already clear.
In this repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- setup-agentSkill
- build-dashboardSkill
- coval-calibrate-metricSkill
- coval-compare-runsSkill
- coval-discover-failuresSkill
- coval-eval-auditSkill
- coval-evals-as-codeSkill
- review-llm-annotations-and-improve-promptSkill
- configure-metricsSkill
- migrate-bluejaySkill
- onboardSkill
- coval-resourcesSkill
- design-personaSkill
- personas-from-artifactsSkill
- analyze-accent-reportSkill
- analyze-adversarial-reportSkill
- analyze-audio-quality-reportSkill
- launch-runSkill
- quick-evalSkill
- run-accent-testingSkill
- run-adversarial-testingSkill
- run-audio-quality-testingSkill
- watch-runSkill
- download-audioSkill
- get-resultsSkill
- consult-sofiaSkill
- build-test-suiteSkill
- distill-test-setSkill
- huggingface-importSkill
- configure-trace-metricsSkill
- debug-tracesSkill
- optimize-trace-observabilitySkill
- setup-tracingSkill
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 25
Start with a small, scoped inventory.
- Distinctive: line 27
No credentials yet? Explain setup using the CLI installation guide, and continue designing locally if the customer wants that.
- Distinctive: line 57
Before execution, state the selected cases, metric IDs, maximum simulations, call-duration limit, and stopping condition.
- Distinctive: line 60
When the customer already knows the failure, don't require a large discovery study before adding a useful regression test.
- Distinctive: line 65
Do not call a starter run statistically conclusive or release-certified.
≈ “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
Start a Coval evaluation
Help the customer answer a product question, not accumulate evaluation resources. Find their situation, explain the next useful step in one sentence, and follow the matching skill. Reuse supplied context; ask only for missing information.
Establish the starting point
Identify the agent's job, the decision the customer wants to make, and what evidence they already have: an endpoint, a test set, completed conversations, an observed failure, or reviewer labels. A first-time Coval user may already have production recordings; don't send them through synthetic onboarding.
For a connected account, check coval --version, coval --agent agent doctor,
and the relevant resource's context/--help. Confirm the intended organization,
API environment and workspace with the customer or their existing configuration.
Doctor checks authentication/connectivity; it does not prove the organization
identity. Never print a key or inspect other organizations to find a match.
Start with a small, scoped inventory. --agent responses wrap payloads in data;
check ok and the process exit code. A list can be one page, not the whole account.
No credentials yet? Explain setup using the CLI installation guide,
and continue designing locally if the customer wants that.
Route by evidence
| Customer situation | Next skill | Useful output |
| No completed conversations; wants a first live evaluation | onboard | A small, real run with inspected results and clear limits |
| Has recordings, transcripts or runs; wants to understand failures | coval-discover-failures | Evidence-backed failure hypotheses and a review sample |
| Has a specific requirement or observed coverage gap | build-test-suite | A compact scenario matrix with checkable expectations |
| Knows what to measure; needs a Coval metric | configure-metrics | The simplest suitable metric and a tested rubric |
| Has a judge; wants to know whether its scores are trustworthy | coval-calibrate-metric | Class-specific errors on independent human labels, or a labeling plan |
| Has resources ready and explicitly wants to run them | quick-eval | A bounded run and a result audit |
| Has before/after runs; asks whether a change helped | coval-compare-runs | Matched evidence, regressions and comparison limits |
| Maintains tests/agents/metrics in Git or Terraform | coval-evals-as-code | Reviewed configuration changes with retained identity and execution evidence |
| Has an existing evaluation setup; wants a trust/coverage audit | coval-eval-audit | Prioritized findings tied to actual Coval artifacts |
These are installed skill names, not shell commands. Locate the selected skill
in the agent's installed skill catalog. If absent, explain the missing skill
and install it only in the user's intended scope, or perform the bounded task
using current public documentation. Do not invent an executable /skill command
or assume sibling directories survive a single-skill installation.
Keep the next step small
- Reuse existing resources. Don't create a second agent, rewrite a production metric, attach defaults, schedule runs, or enable notifications merely to start.
- For a new voice connection, propose one case, one persona, one iteration, concurrency one. A request to plan or audit does not authorize a paid run. Honor an already authorized execution budget; don't ask again inside it.
- Before execution, state the selected cases, metric IDs, maximum simulations, call-duration limit, and stopping condition. Count base + every mutation and every persona. Reruns and metric tests consume budget too.
- When the customer already knows the failure, don't require a large discovery study before adding a useful regression test. Label assumptions as hypotheses.
- Finished execution is not proof of agent quality. Missing outputs, failed metrics, simulator mistakes and unvalidated judges must remain visible.
Do not call a starter run statistically conclusive or release-certified. End with the evidence obtained and the single next action it supports.
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.

