eval
Skill20 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Quality and performance evaluation with baseline comparison. Sub-modes: correctness, performance, quality, regression. Outputs PASS/WARN/FAIL per dimension. Use for pre-ship evaluation or regression checks.
41 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jisuzzzz/haechitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Integralist/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- DataChuLee/Claude-Code-Settingtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jh941213/my-cc-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jh941213/ADLC-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- julienamorgan/signal-prospecting-kittheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use docs-ci, docs-interfaces and 10 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.
jh941213Skilldocs-ci
문서 CI(링크·OpenAPI lint·breaking 게이트·mermaid 검증)나 문서 드리프트 감지(docs.yaml 신선도 검사)를 설치하거나 돌릴 때 사용. 문서 내용 작성은 docs-architecture·docs-interfaces·docs-manuals.
Also in 3 projects that use this
jh941213Skilldocs-interfaces
API·이벤트 인터페이스 문서(OpenAPI·swagger·AsyncAPI 명세, 엔드포인트 레퍼런스, API 구성도·시퀀스, API CHANGELOG)를 만들거나 코드와 맞출 때 사용. 시스템 구성도는 docs-architecture, API 설계 원칙은 api-design-principles.
Also in 3 projects that use this
open-coder-aiSkillpolicy-init
Create conformant Chock policy from request. args(request, target_path,
Also in 3 projects that use this
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-export
Export instincts from project/global scope to a file
Also in 3 projects that use this
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-import
Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope
Also in 3 projects that use this
diego-tobalinaSkillbuild-fix
Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +4 more from jh941213
Other versions41 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 41
- PrimeIntellect-ai/prime-rl★ 2.2ksame name
- rohanpsingh/LearningHumanoidWalking★ 1.2ksame name
- mikeyobrien/rho★ 372same name
- ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst★ 304same name
- jh941213/ADLC-harness★ 125same name
- jh941213/my-cc-harness★ 125same name
- jh941213/my-claude-code-asset★ 125same name
- qtzx06/yolodex★ 96same name
- Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox★ 64same name
- Kanevry/session-orchestrator★ 53same name
31 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 repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- benchmarkSkill
- agent-introspectionSkill
- auditSkill
- commitSkill
- contextSkill
- councilSkill
- _criticSkill
- debugSkill
- discoverSkill
- _dispatchSkill
- documentSkill
- evolveSkill
- goSkill
- orbitSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- perfSkill
- reflectSkill
- secureSkill
- shipSkill
- simplifySkill
- specSkill
- tddSkill
- teamSkill
- threat-modelSkill
- triageSkill
- verifySkill
- vuln-scanSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 32 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
9
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
CRITICAL: Run HARNESS_DIR=$(epic path) first.
- Very specific: line 11
Before /ship creates a PR (automatic if eval.yaml exists)
- Very specific: line 12
After /go completes a feature
- Distinctive: line 14
When user mentions "regression", "baseline", "eval suite", "quality check"
- Very specific: line 36
If $HARNESS_DIR/eval/eval.yaml does not exist, run scaffold:
- Very specific: line 48
If eval.yaml has benchmarks: [] and no benchmark files are found in the project:
- Distinctive: line 78
Read the project's main source files to understand the domain
- Very specific: line 80
Write a benchmark that measures those signals and outputs {"composite": 0.0–1.0, ...}
- Very specific: line 90
Use result_type: exit_code for frameworks (criterion, JMH, BenchmarkDotNet) that manage their own output.
- Very specific: line 101
If the CLI reports llm_judge: SKIPPED (no LLM available in CLI mode), proceed to Step 2 for LLM-as-judge.
- Very specific: line 105
If the quality dimension has llm_judge: true and CLI marked it SKIPPED:
- Distinctive: line 128
If no baseline exists, the current run BECOMES the first baseline.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 32 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Eval — Quality & Regression Gate
CRITICAL: Run HARNESS_DIR=$(epic path) first. Never use .harness/ in the project directory.
When to Trigger
- Before
/shipcreates a PR (automatic if eval.yaml exists) - After
/gocompletes a feature - On explicit
/evalcommand - When user mentions "regression", "baseline", "eval suite", "quality check"
- CI:
make evalorepic eval --json
Execution Modes
4 dimensions run in parallel where possible:
- eval:correctness — Test pass rate, mutation score, assertion density
- eval:performance — Throughput, latency, memory (opt-in)
- eval:quality — Lint, code quality, LLM-as-judge
- eval:regression — Baseline comparison, score deltas
Process
Step 0: Prerequisites
HARNESS_DIR=$(epic path)If $HARNESS_DIR/eval/eval.yaml does not exist, run scaffold:
epic eval --initRead the config:
cat $HARNESS_DIR/eval/eval.yamlStep 0.5: Scaffold benchmarks (when no benchmark infrastructure exists)
If eval.yaml has benchmarks: [] and no benchmark files are found in the project:
Generate stub files using the CLI:
epic eval --scaffoldSupported stacks (auto-detected from project markers):
Stack Detected by Generated file Output format Rust Cargo.tomlbenches/eval_harness.rscriterion (exit code) Python pyproject.toml/setup.pybenchmarks/eval_runner.pyJSON composite TypeScript tsconfig.jsonbenchmarks/eval.tsJSON composite Node.js package.jsonbenchmarks/eval.mjsJSON composite Go go.modbenchmarks/eval_test.goJSON composite Java pom.xml/build.gradlebenchmarks/EvalBenchmark.javaexit code Kotlin build.gradle.ktsbenchmarks/EvalBenchmark.ktexit code Ruby Gemfilebenchmarks/eval_benchmark.rbJSON composite PHP composer.jsonbenchmarks/eval_benchmark.phpJSON composite C# *.csproj/*.slnBenchmarks/EvalBenchmark.csJSON composite Swift Package.swiftbenchmarks/EvalBenchmark.swiftJSON composite Elixir mix.exsbenchmarks/eval_benchmark.exsJSON composite C++ CMakeLists.txtbenchmarks/eval_benchmark.cppexit code - Customize the generated file — every file has
# TODO/// TODOmarkers:- Replace placeholder logic with calls to your actual domain functions
- Adjust the composite score weights to reflect your domain priorities
- For precision/recall benchmarks: wire in your real test set and model
- If
--scaffoldcan't generate a useful stub (domain too complex, custom evaluation logic needed), generate a custom benchmark with LLM assistance:- Read the project's main source files to understand the domain
- Identify the 2–3 most critical quality signals (latency, accuracy, throughput, precision/recall)
- Write a benchmark that measures those signals and outputs
{"composite": 0.0–1.0, ...} - Save to
benchmarks/eval_runner.{ext}matching the project language
- Wire into eval.yaml:
Usebenchmarks: - name: eval_runner command: python3 benchmarks/eval_runner.py full result_type: composite # parse composite field from JSON stdoutresult_type: exit_codefor frameworks (criterion, JMH, BenchmarkDotNet) that manage their own output.
Step 1: Run Rust CLI
Execute the structured evaluation via the Rust binary:
epic eval --jsonThis runs all enabled dimensions and outputs a JSON result. Capture the output.
If the CLI reports llm_judge: SKIPPED (no LLM available in CLI mode), proceed to Step 2 for LLM-as-judge. Otherwise, skip to Step 3.
Step 2: LLM-as-Judge (when llm_judge enabled)
If the quality dimension has llm_judge: true and CLI marked it SKIPPED:
- Sample 3–5 changed files from the current branch:
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main) - For each sampled file, evaluate on a 1-10 rubric:
- Readability (naming, structure, flow)
- Correctness (logic, edge cases, error handling)
- DRY (no unjustified duplication)
- Security (no obvious vulnerabilities)
- Average scores across files. Map to 0.0–1.0 scale.
- Record results alongside CLI output.
Step 3: Load Baseline
cat $HARNESS_DIR/eval/baselines/latest.jsonIf no baseline exists, the current run BECOMES the first baseline. Save it:
epic eval --baseline-updateReport: "First baseline established. Future runs will compare against this."
Step 4: Synthesize Report
Combine CLI output + LLM-as-judge results into a single report:
## Eval Report
- Branch: {branch}
- Commit: {commit_short}
### Correctness: [PASS/WARN/FAIL] — score: {score}
- Tests: {passed}/{total} passing ({pass_rate}%)
- Mutation score: {mutation_score}% (if enabled)
- Delta vs baseline: {+/-delta}
### Performance: [PASS/WARN/FAIL] — score: {score} (if enabled)
- Avg latency: {latency}ms (delta: {+/-delta})
- Throughput: {throughput} (delta: {+/-delta})
### Quality: [PASS/WARN/FAIL] — score: {score}
- Lint errors: {count}
- LLM judge: {score}/10 (if enabled)
### Regression: [PASS/FAIL]
| Dimension | Baseline | Current | Delta | Verdict |
|-----------|----------|---------|-------|---------|
| correctness | {prev} | {cur} | {delta} | {pass/fail} |
| quality | {prev} | {cur} | {delta} | {pass/fail} |
### Overall: [PASS/WARN/FAIL] — {overall_score}Step 5: Act
- All PASS + no regression: "Eval passed. Run
/shipto create a PR." - WARN: Show warnings. Ask whether to fix before shipping.
- FAIL or regression detected: List each failure with fix hint. "Fix with
/go, then re-run/eval."
Step 6: Save Results
epic eval --baseline-update # if user approves this as new baselineResults auto-saved to $HARNESS_DIR/eval/results/EVAL-{timestamp}.json.
Anti-Rationalization
| Excuse | Rebuttal | What to do instead |
| "Tests pass, no need for eval" | Tests pass today but regress tomorrow without baselines | Run eval and establish a baseline |
| "Performance testing is premature" | Latency regressions are invisible until users complain | Enable performance dimension, run benchmarks now |
| "Mutation testing is too slow" | Slow mutation catches bugs fast tests miss | Run on changed modules only (--dimension correctness) |
| "LLM-as-judge is subjective" | Subjective beats absent — fixed rubric + averaging reduces variance | Use the 4-axis rubric, average across 3+ files |
| "We can add eval later" | Later never comes; regressions accumulate silently | Start with correctness+quality, add dimensions incrementally |
| "CI will catch regressions" | CI only catches build/test failures, not quality drift | Eval measures what CI misses: mutation score, LLM quality |
Evidence Required
epic eval --jsonoutput captured (all enabled dimensions scored)- Baseline comparison performed (or first baseline established)
- Each dimension has PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict
- No dimension regressed beyond threshold (or explicit user override)
- Results saved to
$HARNESS_DIR/eval/results/ - LLM-as-judge scores recorded (if enabled)
Red Flags
- Reporting PASS without actual
epic evaloutput - Skipping regression comparison "because it's the first run" (first run should ESTABLISH baseline)
- Reporting PASS with 0 test coverage
- Ignoring mutation score drops >5%
- Marking eval PASS when any dimension below minimum threshold
- Running eval on main branch instead of feature branch
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.

