agent-benchmark
Skill7 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Self-benchmark: YOU write the code, adversarial reviews it (multi-provider), you fix, you write tests, adversarial reviews tests, you fix. Measures YOUR quality as an agent. Run in different models (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku) and compare results.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- alejandro-ao/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 4, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- alejandro-ao/skills★ 13same name
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 repository58 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- a11y-auditSkill
- api-auditSkill
- architectureSkill
- backlogSkill
- benchmarkSkill
- brainstormSkill
- buildSkill
- canarySkill
- ci-auditSkill
- code-auditSkill
- container-auditSkill
- content-auditSkill
- content-expandSkill
- content-fixSkill
- content-migrationSkill
- context-auditSkill
- db-auditSkill
- debugSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- deploySkill
- design-reviewSkill
- designSkill
- docsSkill
- env-auditSkill
- executeSkill
- fix-testsSkill
- geo-auditSkill
- geo-fixSkill
- incidentSkill
- infra-auditSkill
- leadsSkill
- mutation-testSkill
- pentestSkill
- performance-auditSkill
- planSkill
- presentationSkill
- profile-sessionSkill
- receive-reviewSkill
- refactor-radarSkill
- refactorSkill
- release-docsSkill
- retroSkill
- reviewSkill
- security-auditSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- seo-fixSkill
- shipSkill
- skill-evalSkill
- structure-auditSkill
- test-auditSkill
- tests-performanceSkill
- ui-design-teamSkill
- using-zuvoSkill
- worktreeSkill
- write-articleSkill
- write-e2eSkill
- write-testsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈13
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 11
Run this skill in different models (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku) to compare agent quality.
- Distinctive: line 24
Read these files before starting:
- Distinctive: line 35
If any file is missing, stop.
- Distinctive: line 58
Create output directory with agent name in folder:
- Very specific: line 82
Read ../../shared/includes/benchmark-corpus/task-code.md.
- Distinctive: line 84
Write the two files yourself: Do NOT dispatch to external providers.
- Distinctive: line 86
Write each file using the Write tool:
- Distinctive: line 90
Follow the spec exactly. Do your best work — this is measuring YOUR quality.
- Very specific: line 106
Run adversarial-review.sh on your R1 files.
- Distinctive: line 112
Read the findings. Print summary:
- Distinctive: line 126
If adversarial found zero issues, copy R1 files as R2:
- Very specific: line 166
Run adversarial-review.sh on your test files.
- Distinctive: line 172
Read findings. Do NOT edit R3 files — they are the baseline.
- Very specific: line 195
After all 4 rounds, score your own output using ../../shared/includes/benchmark-scoring-rubric.md.
- Distinctive: line 197
Read your R2 files. Score C1-C7 (code quality, max 35).
- Distinctive: line 198
Read your R4 files. Score T1-T5 (test quality, max 25).
- Distinctive: line 296
Use these API prices (USD per 1M tokens) to compute cost:
- Very specific: line 338
After printing, append to the log file path resolved per ../../shared/includes/run-logger.md.
≈ “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
zuvo:agent-benchmark — Self-Benchmark
You are the subject of this benchmark. YOU write the code and tests. Adversarial review (multi-provider) critiques your work between rounds. You fix based on findings.
Run this skill in different models (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku) to compare agent quality.
Argument Parsing
| Flag | Effect |
--quick | Skip adversarial rounds (R1 code + R3 tests only, no fixes) |
--no-tests | Skip test rounds (R1 + R2 only) |
--dry-run | Print what would happen, don't execute |
| (no flags) | Full 4-round benchmark with adversarial |
Mandatory File Loading
Read these files before starting:
CORE FILES LOADED:
1. ../../shared/includes/benchmark-corpus/task-code.md -- READ/MISSING
2. ../../shared/includes/benchmark-corpus/task-tests.md -- READ/MISSING
3. ../../shared/includes/benchmark-scoring-rubric.md -- READ/MISSING
4. ../../shared/includes/run-logger.md -- READ/MISSING
5. ../../shared/includes/retrospective.md -- READ/MISSINGIf any file is missing, stop.
Setup
Detect current model: check
$CLAUDE_MODELor infer from context. Record asagent_model. Build a short slug using this table:Model string contains Slug opusopussonnetsonnethaikuhaikugpt-5.4orcodex+5.4codex-5.4gpt-5.3orcodex+5.3codex-5.3gpt-5orcodex(no version)codexgeminigeminicomposercomposercursorcursoranything else use the model name as-is Do NOT use
agentas a slug. The slug must identify which model ran the benchmark.- Create output directory with agent name in folder:
AGENT_SLUG="<slug from step 1>" RUN_ID="agent-bm-${AGENT_SLUG}-$(date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ)" OUT_DIR="zuvo/reports/${RUN_ID}" mkdir -p "$OUT_DIR"
Dispatch follows ../../shared/includes/execution-policy.md through env-compat. Reuse existing
authorization within that policy; session restrictions take precedence. Run each required gate
and report its actual independence or an unmet requirement.
- Find adversarial-review.sh:
scripts/adversarial-review.sh(if in zuvo-plugin repo)~/.codex/scripts/adversarial-review.sh(Codex install)~/.cursor/scripts/adversarial-review.sh(Cursor install)~/.zuvo/adversarial-review(stable; the versioned cache path breaks after any release) (Claude Code)
- Record start time.
Round 1 — Write Code
Read ../../shared/includes/benchmark-corpus/task-code.md. This is your task.
Write the two files yourself. Do NOT dispatch to external providers. YOU are the agent being tested.
Write each file using the Write tool:
$OUT_DIR/r1-OrderService.ts$OUT_DIR/r1-useSearchProducts.ts
Follow the spec exactly. Do your best work — this is measuring YOUR quality.
Record R1 time: r1_time_s = end - start.
Print:
── Round 1: Code ──
r1-OrderService.ts — written (N lines)
r1-useSearchProducts.ts — written (N lines)
Time: XsRound 2 — Adversarial Review + Fix
Run adversarial-review.sh on your R1 files. Use all available providers (default multi-provider mode):
adversarial-review.sh --files "$OUT_DIR/r1-OrderService.ts $OUT_DIR/r1-useSearchProducts.ts" --jsonRead the findings. Print summary:
── Round 2: Adversarial Review ──
Providers: [list of adversarial reviewers]
Findings: N critical, M warning, K infoNow fix your code based on the adversarial findings. Do NOT edit R1 files — they are the baseline. Write corrected code as NEW files:
$OUT_DIR/r2-OrderService.ts(new file — corrected version of r1)$OUT_DIR/r2-useSearchProducts.ts(new file — corrected version of r1)
Save adversarial findings:
$OUT_DIR/r2-adversarial-findings.txt
If adversarial found zero issues, copy R1 files as R2:
cp $OUT_DIR/r1-OrderService.ts $OUT_DIR/r2-OrderService.ts
cp $OUT_DIR/r1-useSearchProducts.ts $OUT_DIR/r2-useSearchProducts.tsRecord R2 time (review + fix).
Print:
Fix applied: [brief description of what you changed]
Time: XsRound 3 — Write Tests
Read ../../shared/includes/benchmark-corpus/task-tests.md.
Replace {{ROUND_1_CODE}} with the contents of your R2 files (the fixed versions).
Write tests yourself for both files:
$OUT_DIR/r3-OrderService.test.ts$OUT_DIR/r3-useSearchProducts.test.ts
Record R3 time.
Print:
── Round 3: Tests ──
r3-OrderService.test.ts — written (N lines, M test cases)
r3-useSearchProducts.test.ts — written (N lines, M test cases)
Time: XsRound 4 — Adversarial Review on Tests + Fix
Run adversarial-review.sh on your test files. Multi-provider mode:
adversarial-review.sh --files "$OUT_DIR/r3-OrderService.test.ts $OUT_DIR/r3-useSearchProducts.test.ts" --json --mode testRead findings. Do NOT edit R3 files — they are the baseline. Read R3, apply fixes, and write corrected tests as NEW files:
$OUT_DIR/r4-OrderService.test.ts(new file — corrected version of r3)$OUT_DIR/r4-useSearchProducts.test.ts(new file — corrected version of r3)
Critical: R3 and R4 must be different files showing before/after. If you edit R3 directly, the benchmark loses the ability to compare pre/post adversarial quality.
Save findings:
$OUT_DIR/r4-adversarial-findings.txt
Record R4 time.
Print:
── Round 4: Adversarial on Tests ──
Findings: N critical, M warning, K info
Fix applied: [brief description]
Time: XsSelf-Scoring
After all 4 rounds, score your own output using ../../shared/includes/benchmark-scoring-rubric.md.
- Read your R2 files. Score C1-C7 (code quality, max 35).
- Read your R4 files. Score T1-T5 (test quality, max 25).
- Compare R1 vs R2 + adversarial findings. Score A1 (code fix, max 5).
- Compare R3 vs R4 + adversarial findings. Score A2 (test fix, max 5).
- Record all scores in
agent-benchmark.jsonunderscoreskey.
Be honest. This is self-evaluation — inflated scores will be caught when comparing across models.
Output — Summary + Artifacts
File Inventory
Print:
── Artifacts: $OUT_DIR/ ──
r1-OrderService.ts (N lines) — original code
r1-useSearchProducts.ts (N lines) — original code
r2-OrderService.ts (N lines) — after adversarial fix
r2-useSearchProducts.ts (N lines) — after adversarial fix
r2-adversarial-findings.txt — adversarial review output
r3-OrderService.test.ts (N lines, M tests) — original tests
r3-useSearchProducts.test.ts (N lines, M tests) — original tests
r4-OrderService.test.ts (N lines, M tests) — after adversarial fix
r4-useSearchProducts.test.ts (N lines, M tests) — after adversarial fix
r4-adversarial-findings.txt — adversarial review output
agent-benchmark.json — machine-readable resultsJSON Report
Write $OUT_DIR/agent-benchmark.json:
{
"version": "1.0",
"skill": "agent-benchmark",
"run_id": "<run_id>",
"timestamp": "<ISO-8601>",
"agent_model": "<model name>",
"agent_slug": "<slug>",
"project": "<project path>",
"r1_time_s": 0,
"r2_time_s": 0,
"r3_time_s": 0,
"r4_time_s": 0,
"total_time_s": 0,
"tokens": {
"r1_input": 0,
"r1_output": 0,
"r2_input": 0,
"r2_output": 0,
"r3_input": 0,
"r3_output": 0,
"r4_input": 0,
"r4_output": 0,
"total_input": 0,
"total_output": 0
},
"cost_usd": {
"note": "Estimated API cost at current pricing. $0 if running from subscription.",
"r1": 0.0,
"r2": 0.0,
"r3": 0.0,
"r4": 0.0,
"total": 0.0,
"price_per_1m_input": 0.0,
"price_per_1m_output": 0.0
},
"r2_adversarial": {
"providers": ["gemini", "codex-fast"],
"critical": 0,
"warning": 0,
"info": 0
},
"r4_adversarial": {
"providers": ["gemini", "codex-fast"],
"critical": 0,
"warning": 0,
"info": 0
},
"files": {
"r1_code_lines": 0,
"r2_code_lines": 0,
"r3_test_lines": 0,
"r3_test_count": 0,
"r4_test_lines": 0,
"r4_test_count": 0
}
}Token Estimation + API Cost
For each round, estimate tokens:
- Input tokens: count words in the prompt × 1.3
- Output tokens: count words in the written files × 1.3
Use these API prices (USD per 1M tokens) to compute cost:
| Model | Input $/1M | Output $/1M |
| opus | 15.00 | 75.00 |
| sonnet | 3.00 | 15.00 |
| haiku | 0.80 | 4.00 |
| composer | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| cursor-composer | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| unknown | 3.00 | 15.00 |
Formula per round: cost = (input_tokens × input_price / 1_000_000) + (output_tokens × output_price / 1_000_000)
Completion Block
AGENT BENCHMARK COMPLETE
Model: [agent_model]
Run ID: [run_id]
Artifacts: [OUT_DIR]/
| Round | Time | Tokens (in/out) | API Cost |
|-------|------|-----------------|----------|
| R1 Code | Xs | ~Nk/~Mk | $X.XX |
| R2 Adversarial+Fix | Xs | ~Nk/~Mk | $X.XX |
| R3 Tests | Xs | ~Nk/~Mk | $X.XX |
| R4 Adversarial+Fix | Xs | ~Nk/~Mk | $X.XX |
| **Total** | **Xs** | **~Nk/~Mk** | **$X.XX** |
Adversarial Impact:
Code: N findings → [what changed]
Tests: N findings → [what changed]
Files: 8 artifacts + 2 findings + 1 JSON = 11 filesRun Log
Run: <ISO-8601-Z> agent-benchmark <project> - - PASS <agent_model> 4-round <notes> <BRANCH> <SHA7> <INCLUDES> <TIER>After printing, append to the log file path resolved per ../../shared/includes/run-logger.md.
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.

