agentleFS
modelscopemodelscope/OpenJudge/skills/openjudge-core/01-graders-and-pipeline/SKILL.md

01-graders-and-pipeline

Skill1.1k starsChanged 10 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Build custom LLM evaluation pipelines using the OpenJudge framework. Covers selecting and configuring graders (LLM-based, function-based, agentic), running batch evaluations with GradingRunner, combining scores with aggregators, applying evaluation strategies (voting, average), auto-generating graders from data, and analyzing results (pairwise win rates, statistics, validation metrics). Use when the user wants to evaluate LLM outputs, compare multiple models, design scoring criteria, or build an automated evaluation system.

  • Installs packages

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the relevant sub-document before writing any code.

    line 34
  2. Very specific:

    All LLM-based graders accept either a BaseChatModel instance or a dict config:

    line 142

≈ “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

OpenJudge Skill

Build evaluation pipelines for LLM applications using the openjudge library.

When to Use This Skill

  • User wants to evaluate LLM output quality (correctness, relevance, hallucination, etc.)
  • User wants to compare two or more models and rank them
  • User wants to design a scoring rubric and automate evaluation
  • User wants to analyze evaluation results statistically
  • User wants to build a reward model or quality filter

Sub-documents — Read When Relevant

TopicFileRead when…
Grader selection & configurationgraders.mdUser needs to pick or configure an evaluator
Batch evaluation pipelinepipeline.mdUser needs to run evaluation over a dataset
Auto-generate graders from datagenerator.mdNo rubric yet; generate from labeled examples
Analyze & compare resultsanalyzer.mdUser wants win rates, statistics, or metrics

Read the relevant sub-document before writing any code.

Install

pip install py-openjudge

Architecture Overview

Dataset (List[dict])
    │
    ▼
GradingRunner                    ← orchestrates everything
    │
    ├─► Grader A ──► EvaluationStrategy ──► _aevaluate() ──► GraderScore / GraderRank
    ├─► Grader B ──► EvaluationStrategy ──► _aevaluate() ──► GraderScore / GraderRank
    └─► Grader C ...
    │
    ├─► Aggregator (optional)    ← combine multiple grader scores into one
    │
    └─► RunnerResult             ← {grader_name: [GraderScore, ...]}
            │
            ▼
        Analyzer                 ← statistics, win rates, validation metrics

5-Minute Quick Start

Evaluate responses for correctness using a built-in grader:

import asyncio
from openjudge.models.openai_chat_model import OpenAIChatModel
from openjudge.graders.common.correctness import CorrectnessGrader
from openjudge.runner.grading_runner import GradingRunner

# 1. Configure the judge model (OpenAI-compatible endpoint)
model = OpenAIChatModel(
    model="qwen-plus",
    api_key="sk-xxx",
    base_url="https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1",
)

# 2. Instantiate a grader
grader = CorrectnessGrader(model=model)

# 3. Prepare dataset
dataset = [
    {
        "query": "What is the capital of France?",
        "response": "Paris is the capital of France.",
        "reference_response": "Paris.",
    },
    {
        "query": "What is 2 + 2?",
        "response": "The answer is five.",
        "reference_response": "4.",
    },
]

# 4. Run evaluation
async def main():
    runner = GradingRunner(
        grader_configs={"correctness": grader},
        max_concurrency=8,
    )
    results = await runner.arun(dataset)

    for i, result in enumerate(results["correctness"]):
        print(f"[{i}] score={result.score}  reason={result.reason}")

asyncio.run(main())

Expected output:

[0] score=5  reason=The response accurately states Paris as capital...
[1] score=1  reason=The response gives the wrong answer (five vs 4)...

Key Data Types

TypeDescription
GraderScorePointwise result: .score (float), .reason (str), .metadata (dict)
GraderRankListwise result: .rank (List[int]), .reason (str), .metadata (dict)
GraderErrorError during evaluation: .error (str), .reason (str)
RunnerResultDict[str, List[GraderResult]] — keyed by grader name

Result Handling Pattern

from openjudge.graders.schema import GraderScore, GraderRank, GraderError

for grader_name, grader_results in results.items():
    for i, result in enumerate(grader_results):
        if isinstance(result, GraderScore):
            print(f"{grader_name}[{i}]: score={result.score}")
        elif isinstance(result, GraderRank):
            print(f"{grader_name}[{i}]: rank={result.rank}")
        elif isinstance(result, GraderError):
            print(f"{grader_name}[{i}]: ERROR — {result.error}")

Model Configuration

All LLM-based graders accept either a BaseChatModel instance or a dict config:

# Option A: instance
from openjudge.models.openai_chat_model import OpenAIChatModel
model = OpenAIChatModel(model="gpt-4o", api_key="sk-...")

# Option B: dict (auto-creates OpenAIChatModel)
model_cfg = {"model": "gpt-4o", "api_key": "sk-..."}
grader = CorrectnessGrader(model=model_cfg)

# OpenAI-compatible endpoints (DashScope / local / etc.)
model = OpenAIChatModel(
    model="qwen-plus",
    api_key="sk-xxx",
    base_url="https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1",
)

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.