eval-harness-skill
Skill7 starsChanged 56 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Evaluate code quality, skill effectiveness, and implementation correctness against defined criteria with scoring and improvement suggestions
- Reads credentials
- Deletes or force-pushes
- Commits and pushes
In this repository85 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- accessibility-a11y-skillSkill
- agent-introspection-debugging-skillSkill
- amplify-nextjs-deployment-skillSkill
- architecture-review-skillSkill
- authentication-authorization-skillSkill
- autoresearch-skillSkill
- aws-iac-safety-skillSkill
- blast-radius-skillSkill
- browser-fallback-skillSkill
- cad-dxf-skillSkill
- cad-generation-skillSkill
- cad-implicit-skillSkill
- cad-redraw-skillSkill
- cad-specialist-skillSkill
- cad-viewer-skillSkill
- changelog-python-cliff-skillSkill
- civiltekk-api-spec-skillSkill
- civiltekk-coding-harness-setup-skillSkill
- civiltekk-context-optimization-skillSkill
- civiltekk-diagram-skillSkill
- civiltekk-documentation-inline-skillSkill
- civiltekk-documentation-sync-skillSkill
- civiltekk-git-commits-skillSkill
- civiltekk-nextjs-skillSkill
- referencesSkill
- civiltekk-opencode-creation-skillSkill
- civiltekk-opentofu-skillSkill
- civiltekk-ponytail-audit-skillSkill
- civiltekk-pr-workflow-skillSkill
- civiltekk-python-backend-skillSkill
- civiltekk-react-quality-skillSkill
- civiltekk-startup-docs-skillSkill
- civiltekk-test-generation-skillSkill
- civiltekk-zai-media-skillSkill
- code-principles-skillSkill
- code-review-inline-skillSkill
- construction-bd-skillSkill
- continuous-learning-skillSkill
- coverage-readme-workflow-skillSkill
- database-migration-skillSkill
- deprecated-code-cleanup-skillSkill
- docker-containerization-skillSkill
- domain-modeling-skillSkill
- email-drafter-skillSkill
- error-resolver-workflow-skillSkill
- frontend-design-skillSkill
- gh-cli-setup-skillSkill
- grilling-skillSkill
- gsap-skillSkill
- horseshoe-paper-writing-skillSkill
- install-assistant-skillSkill
- language-linting-skillSkill
- language-review-checklists-skillSkill
- linting-inline-skillSkill
- linting-workflow-skillSkill
- logging-observability-skillSkill
- monorepo-management-skillSkill
- office-document-router-skillSkill
- opencode-repo-setup-skillSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
- Distinctive: line 62
Auto-detection: if this skill is invoked on a task that looks iterative (multiple cycles expected), prompt ONCE per session: "This looks …
- Very specific: line 68
Git-as-memory: commit before each verify.
≈ “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
What I do
Structured evaluation framework: define measurable criteria → run checks → score 0-10 per criterion → report pass/fail vs thresholds → suggest improvements for failures. Unlike verification-loop-skill (gate execution), this skill owns scoring rubrics and thresholds.
Trigger phrases: "evaluate this code", "run eval", "score this implementation", "quality check", "benchmark against criteria".
Default Criteria (0-10 each, thresholds customizable per run)
| Criterion | Threshold | Key questions |
| Correctness | 7 | Does it do what it should? Edge cases? Error paths? |
| Code Quality | 7 | Conventions, readability, abstractions without over-engineering |
| Test Coverage | 7 | Tests present? Edge cases covered? Maintainable? |
| Performance | 6 | Efficient algorithms, no wasted computation, caching where applicable |
| Security | 7 | Input validation, no injection, proper authn/authz |
Score ranges: 9-10 excellent · 7-8 good · 5-6 adequate · 3-4 below standard · 1-2 poor · 0 failed. Overall = sum + percentage; verdict from thresholds.
Scope Variants
Single file · module/directory · skill output (skill:<name>) · PR diff (pr:<num>) · acceptance criteria (issue:<num>).
Workflow
- Define criteria for the target (use defaults, add domain-specific ones). Criteria must be measurable ("functions under 20 lines", not "clean code") and consistent across comparable runs.
- Execute: static analysis (lint, types, complexity) → pattern/anti-pattern checks → test run + coverage → score each criterion → gap analysis.
- Report: per-criterion table (score / threshold / status) + overall + per-failure findings with concrete fix suggestions (priority, effort, expected impact).
- Gate semantics: evaluations can gate PRs — a failed critical criterion blocks merge. Judge trends across runs, not absolute scores; note exceptions when a criterion doesn't apply.
Criteria starters: code quality — naming per language convention, function ≤20 lines, cyclomatic <10, no silent catches, DRY. Skill effectiveness — task completion, output production-readiness, consistency, graceful failure, integration. Acceptance criteria — each criterion checked with evidence, no partial completions, no regressions.
Integration
verification-loop-skill— canonical gate contract; eval supplies scoring rubrics, not gate executioncontinuous-learning-skill— learn which patterns score wellciviltekk-context-optimization-skill— compact preserves eval resultslinting-workflow-skill/ thecode-smellsroute ofcode-principles-skill/ thesolid-principlesroute ofcode-principles-skill— signals feeding the quality criterion
References
verification-loop-skill— gates and verification during implementationcontinuous-learning-skill— learning from evaluation resultsciviltekk-context-optimization-skill— preserving eval context
Iteration Protocol (opt-in)
DO NOT execute any of the following unless AUTORESEARCH_PROTOCOL=1 is set in your environment. When unset, this skill behaves exactly as documented in all sections above; the Iteration Protocol block is descriptive only.
When AUTORESEARCH_PROTOCOL=1:
- Gate check: confirm env var is set; if unset, follow default behavior above.
- Auto-detection: if this skill is invoked on a task that looks iterative (multiple cycles expected), prompt ONCE per session: "This looks iterative. Enable autoresearch protocol? (y/n)". On "y", continue; on "n", default behavior. Cache the answer for the session.
- 5-stage loop: cycle Understand → Hypothesize → Experiment → Evaluate → Log & Iterate. See
autoresearch-skill/SKILL.md. - Evaluator contract: emit
{"pass":bool,"score":N}JSON from a mechanical evaluator. Pass determines keep/revert; score logged toeval-harness-results.tsv. Seeautoresearch-skill/references/evaluator-contract.md. - Stuck detection: 3 consecutive non-improving iterations → strategy pivot; 5 consecutive → paradigm shift. See
autoresearch-skill/references/stuck-detection.md. - Audit trail: append every iteration to
eval-harness-results.tsv(8-column: iteration, commit, metric, delta, status, description, timestamp, evaluator_output). Seeautoresearch-skill/references/audit-trail.md. - Crash recovery: syntax errors → fix immediately (don't count); runtime → max 3 fix attempts then skip; timeout → revert + log; OOM → smaller variant. See
autoresearch-skill/references/crash-recovery.md. - Git-as-memory: commit before each verify; auto-revert (
git reset --hard HEAD~1) onpass:false. - Iteration safety: bounded-by-default (
Iterations: 25); safety blocks.env,node_modules/,rm -rf,git push --force. Seeautoresearch-skill/references/iteration-safety.md.
Skill-specific override
TSV audit trail. Append every eval run to eval-harness-results.tsv. Overnight persistence via autoresearch-skill/scripts/autoresearch-loop.sh (detects available CLI tool). Score is the eval metric; pass = meets target threshold.
Max iterations
- Default: 25 iterations
- Hard cap: 100 (explicit
Iterations: unlimitedoverrides)
Removal note (2026-09-19, #409 trim per LEARNINGS #383 recipe): dropped the worked criteria/report markdown examples, the evaluation-templates section (compressed to criteria starters), the Example Usage section, and Best Practices prose (compressed into the workflow). Kept verbatim: frontmatter, criteria/threshold/score tables, workflow contract, Iteration Protocol section.
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.

