agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/amplifier-bundle-context-intelligence/skills/context-intelligence-evaluation-methodology/SKILL.md

context-intelligence-evaluation-methodology

Skill5 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when deciding how to measure a context-intelligence tool signal. Covers metric design across quality/efficiency/efficacy axes, artifact-metric avoidance via precursor measurement, A/B and statistical-N discipline, and test-data fidelity.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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:

    Measure the precursor, not only the failure: Prefer leading indicators (e.g.

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Pick the cheapest axis that discriminates: If a deterministic efficiency signal (token growth, tool-call count) separates good from bad …

    line 48
  3. Distinctive:

    Identify the precursor: Ask: what climbs *before* the failure?

    line 51

≈ “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

Context Intelligence Evaluation Methodology

Mode-only skill for how to measure. It complements — and never restates — context-intelligence-eval-design (which owns scenario mechanics and the two-layer structural/behavioral structure) and digital-twin-universe (which owns the DTU machinery).

Scope

In scope

  • Metric design. Choose metrics across three axes: quality (did it detect what the user means?), efficiency (token/tool cost to detect), efficacy (does detection drive the right outcome?).
  • Measure the precursor, not only the failure. Prefer leading indicators (e.g. bounded vs climbing context growth) over lagging ones (e.g. a final timeout). The precursor is testable in a short window; the full failure often is not.
  • A/B + statistical-N discipline. A single green run is not proof of a behavioral change. Compare a control arm against a treatment arm; require N independent trials and report the pass rate, not a single anecdote.
  • Test data fidelity. Validate on real sessions where available, or on faithfully modeled synthetic corpora that preserve the distribution that matters (e.g. heavy-tail file sizes), never on data hand-shaped to pass.

Out of scope (point elsewhere — do not restate)

  • Scenario mechanics, the two-layer structure, DTU profile templates / Gitea URL rewrite → context-intelligence-eval-design.
  • DTU lifecycle, launch/exec/profiles → the digital-twin-universe skill.
  • "DTU-as-default" rationale and the "artifact-as-success" anti-pattern → already authoritative in context-intelligence-eval-design and context-intelligence:context/context-intelligence-primitives-reference.md. Reference them; do not repeat them.

Method

  1. Name the user-meaningful outcome the metric must reflect (from domain-concepts.md), not what a detector happens to emit.
  2. Pick the cheapest axis that discriminates. If a deterministic efficiency signal (token growth, tool-call count) separates good from bad behavior, prefer it over an LLM-judged quality rubric.
  3. Identify the precursor. Ask: what climbs before the failure? Measure that in a bounded window.
  4. Design the A/B. Control = current behavior; treatment = the change. Hold everything else identical. Decide N and the pass threshold before running.
  5. Choose the corpus. Real sessions if available; otherwise synthetic that preserves the load-bearing distribution. State the fidelity assumption explicitly.

Apply (do not restate) the event-semantics principle: when a metric depends on what an event means, consult the authoritative ecosystem expert agents for that event's semantics — the principle is named once in context-intelligence:context/context-intelligence-strategy.md. Do not restate it here.

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.