agentleFS
markoblogomarkoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/skills/bounded-evaluation/SKILL.md

bounded-evaluation

Skill16 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Design small evaluation gates for agent outputs, skill changes, prompts, and tool contracts. Use when a change needs rubric checks, pairwise comparison, position-bias mitigation, regression fixtures, or LLM-as-judge discipline without building a heavy eval platform.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when a change needs a small, explicit evaluation gate.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer deterministic checks for syntax, schema, file existence, and command success.

    line 40
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep human approval for high-stakes or ambiguous decisions.

    line 41
  4. Distinctive:

    If using pairwise judging, run both candidate orders.

    line 48
  5. Distinctive:

    follow-up artifact or ledger update.

    line 63
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not publish benchmark claims without committed fixtures, arms, model, host, run count, and captured artifacts.

    line 67
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not let an LLM judge approve its own rubric changes.

    line 68
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not use pairwise preference as proof of correctness.

    line 69
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not hide invalid or inconsistent judge results.

    line 70

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Bounded Evaluation

Use this skill when a change needs a small, explicit evaluation gate.

Use When

  • reviewing skill changes, AGENTS.md rules, prompt playbooks, or SET bundle changes;
  • comparing two agent outputs or proposals;
  • using an LLM judge where bias or weak rubrics could mislead;
  • creating activation tests, regression cases, or ship gates for agent behavior;
  • deciding whether a repeated workflow improved after a bounded edit.

Evaluation Contract

A bounded eval must state:

  • target artifact or behavior;
  • candidate outputs or versions;
  • rubric dimensions and weights, if any;
  • pass/fail threshold;
  • fixtures or scenarios;
  • judge type: deterministic check, human review, LLM judge, or hybrid;
  • known bias risks and mitigation.

Pairwise And Judge Rules

  • Compare A/B outputs against the same rubric.
  • Swap candidate order when using an LLM judge to detect position bias.
  • Require reasons before scores, but treat reasons as evidence to inspect, not truth.
  • Mark the eval invalid when swapped order changes the winner without a defensible reason.
  • Prefer deterministic checks for syntax, schema, file existence, and command success.
  • Keep human approval for high-stakes or ambiguous decisions.

Workflow

  1. Define the smallest behavior being evaluated.
  2. Pick 1-5 representative fixtures or scenarios.
  3. Choose deterministic checks before LLM judging.
  4. If using pairwise judging, run both candidate orders.
  5. Record results, invalidations, and decision.
  6. Feed accepted/rejected outcomes back into the relevant ledger.

Output Shape

Use:

  • eval target;
  • fixtures;
  • rubric;
  • judge type;
  • results;
  • bias checks;
  • decision: accept, reject, revise, or invalid;
  • follow-up artifact or ledger update.

Guardrails

  • Do not publish benchmark claims without committed fixtures, arms, model, host, run count, and captured artifacts.
  • Do not let an LLM judge approve its own rubric changes.
  • Do not use pairwise preference as proof of correctness.
  • Do not hide invalid or inconsistent judge results.

Provenance

Adapted from advanced-evaluation patterns in muratcankoylan/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering, aligned with ABVX SkillOpt validation gates.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.