agent-evaluation
Skill11 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub
Evaluate GenAI agent task execution using LLM-as-judge. Produces structured scores (0-5), feedback, and improvement recommendations.
- Reads credentials
- Sends data out
21 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Azir-11/skill-hubtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- fmind/dottheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- fmind/dotfilestheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- asmamest/Nexus-Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- paulopestanajunior/agents-configtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- xfstudio/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use tool-design, kubernetes and 7 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
mjunaidcaSkilltool-design
Design tools that agents can use effectively. Use when creating new tools for agents, debugging tool-related failures, or optimizing existing tool sets.
Also in 3 projects that use this
mjunaidcaSkillkubernetes
Production-grade Kubernetes manifests and debugging for containerized applications. This skill should be used when users ask to deploy to Kubernetes, create K8s manifests, containerize for K8s, set up Deployments/Services/Jobs/StatefulSets/CronJobs, create namespaces with resource quotas, set up multi-team isolation, configure ResourceQuota/ LimitRange, secure with RBAC (ServiceAccount, Role, RoleBinding), configure init containers (model download, db wait, migrations), set up sidecars (logging, metrics), or debug pods (CrashLoopBackOff, logs, exec, describe, events). Auto-detects from Dockerfile/code, generates hardened manifests with educational comments. CKAD-aligned.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillgithub-actions
Use when creating, editing, reviewing, or troubleshooting GitHub Actions workflows in Scope.
Also in 3 projects that use this
mrgoonieSkillcontext-engineering
Master context engineering for AI agent systems. Use when designing agent architectures, debugging context failures, optimizing token usage, implementing memory systems, building multi-agent coordination, evaluating agent performance, or developing LLM-powered pipelines. Covers context fundamentals, degradation patterns, optimization techniques (compaction, masking, caching), compression strategies, memory architectures, multi-agent patterns, LLM-as-Judge evaluation, tool design, and project development.
Also in 4 projects that use this
wrsmith108Skilldocker
Container-based development for isolated, reproducible environments. Use when running npm commands, installing packages, executing code, or managing project dependencies. Trigger phrases include "npm install", "run the build", "start the server", "install package", or any code execution request.
Also in 3 projects that use this
xenitV1Skillclean-code
Pragmatic coding standards - concise, direct, no over-engineering, no unnecessary comments
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions21 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 21
- bojieli/ai-agent-book-projects★ 53ksame name
- bojieli/ai-agent-book★ 53ksame name
- microsoft/Building-AI-Agents-From-Zero-To-Production★ 194same name
- alebgl77/claude-inc★ 21same name
- fmind/dot★ 13same name
- fmind/dotfiles★ 13same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- Azir-11/skill-hub★ 7same name
- nek1987/auto-agent-harness★ 4same name
- ai4brands-design/claude-skills★ 2same name
11 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- feature-workflowSkill
- opencode-session-dbSkill
- plugin-testingSkill
- readiness-checkSkill
- opencode-slack-integrationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 17 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 55
Use this prompt for LLM-as-judge evaluation:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 17 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Agent Evaluation Skill
Evaluate AI agent task execution using world-class LLM-as-judge patterns from DeepEval, RAGAS, and G-Eval frameworks.
Output Format
Evaluation results are saved to evals/results/eval-${yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm}-${commit_id}.md
Results Table
| Task Input | Agent Output | Reflection Input | Reflection Output | Score | Verdict | Feedback |
| Create hello.js... | I've created hello.js with... | Task: Create hello.js Agent Output: ... | Task complete | 5/5 | COMPLETE | Agent produced output; Found completion indicators |
| Fix the bug... | I found the issue and... | Task: Fix bug Agent Output: ... | (none) | 3/5 | PARTIAL | Agent produced output; Missing reflection |
Run Evaluation
# Run E2E evaluation
npx tsx eval.ts
# Or via npm
npm run eval:e2e
# Output saved to: evals/results/eval-2026-01-28-12-30-abc1234.mdEvaluation Rubric (0-5)
| Score | Verdict | Criteria |
| 5 | COMPLETE | Task fully accomplished. All requirements met. Optimal execution. |
| 4 | MOSTLY_COMPLETE | Task done with minor issues. 1-2 suboptimal steps. |
| 3 | PARTIAL | Core objective achieved but significant gaps or errors. |
| 2 | ATTEMPTED | Progress made but failed to complete. Correct intent, wrong execution. |
| 1 | FAILED | Wrong approach or incorrect result. |
| 0 | NO_ATTEMPT | No meaningful progress. Crashed or no output. |
Pass threshold: >= 3 (development), >= 4 (production)
Evaluation Prompt Template
Use this prompt for LLM-as-judge evaluation:
You are an expert evaluator assessing AI agent task completion.
## Original Task
{{task}}
## Execution Trace
{{trace}}
## Final Output
{{output}}
## Evaluation Criteria
1. Was the core objective achieved?
2. Were appropriate tools selected?
3. Were tool arguments correct?
4. Was execution efficient (minimal steps)?
5. Is the final output accurate and complete?
## Scoring Rubric
- 5: COMPLETE - All requirements met perfectly
- 4: MOSTLY_COMPLETE - Minor issues only
- 3: PARTIAL - Core done but significant gaps
- 2: ATTEMPTED - Progress made but failed
- 1: FAILED - Wrong approach or result
- 0: NO_ATTEMPT - No meaningful progress
## Instructions
1. Analyze the execution step-by-step
2. Identify specific issues or strengths
3. Score using the rubric
4. Provide actionable recommendations
## Response Format (JSON only)
{
"reasoning": "<step-by-step analysis>",
"score": <0-5>,
"verdict": "<COMPLETE|MOSTLY_COMPLETE|PARTIAL|ATTEMPTED|FAILED|NO_ATTEMPT>",
"feedback": "<1-2 sentence summary>",
"recommendations": ["<improvement 1>", "<improvement 2>"]
}Quick Evaluation Playbook
Step 1: Extract Data
# Get task from session
TASK=$(cat .reflection/session_*.json | jq -r '.task' | head -1)
# Get execution trace (last 20 messages)
TRACE=$(opencode session messages --limit 20 --format json)
# Get final output
OUTPUT=$(opencode session messages --last --format text)Step 2: Run Evaluation
# Using promptfoo (recommended)
cd evals && npx promptfoo eval \
-c agent-eval.yaml \
--var task="$TASK" \
--var trace="$TRACE" \
--var output="$OUTPUT" \
-o results/eval-$(date +%s).json
# Or using direct API call
curl -X POST "https://api.openai.com/v1/chat/completions" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $OPENAI_API_KEY" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "gpt-4o-mini",
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "<EVAL_PROMPT>"}],
"response_format": {"type": "json_object"}
}' | jq '.choices[0].message.content | fromjson'Step 3: Parse Results
# Extract score and feedback
cat results/eval-*.json | jq '{
score: .score,
verdict: .verdict,
feedback: .feedback,
recommendations: .recommendations
}'Metrics Reference
Core Agent Metrics
| Metric | Type | Description |
| Task Completion | 0-5 | Overall goal achievement |
| Tool Correctness | binary | Right tools selected |
| Argument Accuracy | 0-1 | Tool arguments correct |
| Step Efficiency | 0-1 | Minimal steps to goal |
Composite Scores
overall_score = (
task_completion * 0.5 +
tool_correctness * 0.2 +
argument_accuracy * 0.2 +
step_efficiency * 0.1
)promptfoo Config Example
Create evals/agent-eval.yaml:
description: Agent task completion evaluation
prompts:
- file://prompts/agent-evaluation.txt
providers:
- id: azure:gpt-4.1-mini
config:
apiHost: eastus.api.cognitive.microsoft.com
deployment_id: gpt-4.1-mini
defaultTest:
assert:
- type: is-json
- type: javascript
value: output.score >= 0 && output.score <= 5
tests:
- vars:
task: "Create a hello.js file that prints Hello World"
trace: |
1. Agent reads current directory
2. Agent creates hello.js with console.log("Hello World")
3. Agent confirms file created
output: "Created hello.js with console.log('Hello World')"
assert:
- type: javascript
value: JSON.parse(output).score >= 4Integration with Reflection Plugin
The reflection plugin uses this evaluation pattern internally:
// reflection-3.ts - simplified evaluation flow
async function evaluateTask(sessionId: string): Promise<Evaluation> {
const task = extractInitialTask(messages)
const trace = formatExecutionTrace(messages)
const output = extractFinalOutput(messages)
const response = await llm.chat({
messages: [{ role: "user", content: buildEvalPrompt(task, trace, output) }],
response_format: { type: "json_object" }
})
return JSON.parse(response.content)
}Benchmarks
Standard Test Cases
| # | Task | Expected Score | Notes |
| 1 | Create file | 5 | Simple, single tool |
| 2 | Multi-file refactor | 4+ | Multiple edits |
| 3 | Debug test failure | 3+ | Iterative process |
| 4 | Research question | 4+ | Read-only, synthesis |
Running Benchmarks
# Run full benchmark suite
npm run eval
# Run specific benchmark
npm run eval:judge
# View results
npm run eval:viewBest Practices
- Always include reasoning - Makes debugging possible
- Use structured JSON output - Parse reliably
- Score consistently - Same rubric across all evals
- Track over time - Catch regressions
- Calibrate with humans - Validate judge accuracy periodically
- Separate outcome vs process - Score both what and how
Troubleshooting
| Issue | Cause | Solution |
| Score always 5 | Prompt too lenient | Add explicit failure criteria |
| Score always low | Rubric too strict | Calibrate with human evals |
| JSON parse error | LLM not following format | Add response_format constraint |
| Inconsistent scores | Ambiguous criteria | Make rubric more specific |
| Slow evaluation | Large trace | Truncate to last N messages |
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.

