ai-evaluation-builder
Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Design an offline and online evaluation harness: datasets, metrics, baselines, regression gates, and production monitoring for AI system quality. Use when working on prompt engineering, AI workflows, agents, context design, or LLM optimization.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-memory-designerSkill
- ai-cost-optimizerSkill
- ai-latency-optimizerSkill
- ai-solution-architectSkill
- ai-workflow-builderSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- human-in-the-loop-designerSkill
- multi-agent-plannerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prompt-optimizerSkill
- prompt-reviewerSkill
- adr-generatorSkill
- api-designerSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- component-diagram-builderSkill
- container-diagram-builderSkill
- data-flow-analyzerSkill
- integration-plannerSkill
- observability-plannerSkill
- scalability-advisorSkill
- solution-architectureSkill
- system-context-builderSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- go-to-market-plannerSkill
- pricing-strategy-advisorSkill
- mcp-best-practicesSkill
- mcp-client-generatorSkill
- mcp-security-reviewSkill
- mcp-server-generatorSkill
- mcp-tool-generatorSkill
- acceptance-criteria-generatorSkill
- analytics-instrumentation-plannerSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- epic-generatorSkill
- feature-prioritizationSkill
- idea-validatorSkill
- north-star-metric-advisorSkill
- okr-builderSkill
- persona-generatorSkill
- prd-generatorSkill
- problem-statement-builderSkill
- product-discovery-assistantSkill
- product-vision-builderSkill
- sprint-plannerSkill
- story-mappingSkill
- user-story-generatorSkill
- value-proposition-designerSkill
- chunking-strategy-advisorSkill
- embedding-strategy-advisorSkill
- hybrid-search-advisorSkill
- knowledge-ingestion-plannerSkill
- rag-architecture-designerSkill
- retriever-optimizerSkill
- ai-governance-advisorSkill
- ai-threat-modelingSkill
- guardrails-builderSkill
- owasp-llm-reviewerSkill
- prompt-injection-detectorSkill
- skill-nameSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 54
Document human eval protocol when automated metrics are insufficient.
- Distinctive: line 133
Start with 50 high-quality golden cases before scaling dataset size.
- Distinctive: line 136
Run eval on every prompt or model change in CI.
≈ “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
AI Evaluation Builder
Purpose
Design an offline and online evaluation harness: datasets, metrics, baselines, regression gates, and production monitoring for AI system quality.
Input: AI architecture or workflow spec, quality requirements, sample inputs/outputs (optional), risk level
Output: Evaluation Plan with dataset spec, metric definitions, harness design, and rollout gates
Examples: See examples.md for worked input/output.
Workflow
Step 1: Define evaluation objectives
Map business requirements to measurable quality dimensions:
| Dimension | Business impact | Priority |
| Accuracy / correctness | User trust | High |
| Latency | UX | Medium |
| Cost | Margin | Medium |
| Safety / refusal | Compliance | High |
| Consistency | Reproducibility | Medium |
Step 2: Design offline evaluation
Dataset specification
| Split | Size | Source | Refresh cadence |
| Golden set | 50–200 cases | Human-curated | Per release |
| Regression set | 500+ cases | Production samples | Weekly |
| Adversarial set | 20–50 cases | Red-team / edge cases | Per major change |
Metrics
| Metric | Definition | Threshold | Aggregation |
| Exact match | Output equals reference | ≥90% | Mean |
| LLM-as-judge score | Rubric 1–5 | ≥4.0 | Mean |
| Tool call accuracy | Correct tool + args | ≥95% | Per tool |
Document human eval protocol when automated metrics are insufficient.
Step 3: Design online evaluation
| Signal | Collection | Alert threshold |
| User thumbs down | Feedback widget | >5% daily |
| Escalation rate | Support tickets tagged AI | >2% weekly |
| Latency p95 | APM | > SLA target |
| Cost per request | Billing API | > budget +10% |
Plan A/B or shadow deployment for model changes.
Step 4: Build harness architecture
Test cases → Runner → Model/Workflow under test → Scorers → Report → GateComponents:
- Runner — batch and single-case execution with config versioning
- Scorers — deterministic + model-based + human queue
- Reporter — diff vs baseline, trend charts, failure clusters
- Gate — pass/fail criteria blocking deployment
Step 5: Define regression gates
| Gate | Condition | Action on fail |
| Golden set | No metric drops >2% vs baseline | Block merge |
| Safety set | Zero critical failures | Block release |
| Latency | p95 within SLA | Warn or block |
| Cost | Per-request within budget | Warn |
Step 6: Validate
Run Validation checklist.
Decision Rules
| Condition | Action |
| No quality requirements defined | Stop; request targets from ai-solution-architect output |
| High-risk use case | Require human eval on 10% of golden set minimum |
| Subjective output (creative writing) | Use rubric-based LLM-as-judge + human spot-check |
| Tool-using agent | Add tool-call accuracy and argument validation metrics |
| No production traffic yet | Offline-only harness; plan online metrics before launch |
| Metric gaming risk (LLM judge) | Calibrate judge against human labels quarterly |
Validation
- Quality dimensions mapped to metrics with thresholds
- Golden, regression, and adversarial datasets specified
- Offline harness components documented
- Online monitoring signals and alert thresholds defined
- Regression gates with block/warn actions
- Baseline version identified for comparison
- Human eval protocol defined where automation insufficient
- Per-agent or per-stage eval for multi-agent workflows
Anti-patterns
- Vibe-based eval — "looks good" without numeric thresholds.
- Train-test leakage — eval cases drawn from fine-tuning data.
- Single metric obsession — optimizing accuracy while ignoring safety or cost.
- Stale golden set — dataset never updated after product changes.
- No baseline — comparing only to previous broken version.
Best Practices
- Start with 50 high-quality golden cases before scaling dataset size.
- Store eval runs with model version, prompt version, and config hash.
- Cluster failures by error type for targeted fixes.
- Run eval on every prompt or model change in CI.
- Pair with ai-cost-optimizer and ai-latency-optimizer for full NFR coverage.
Output Structure
# Evaluation Plan: [System Name]
## Objectives
| Dimension | Metric | Threshold |
|-----------|--------|-----------|
## Offline Datasets
| Split | Size | Source | Refresh |
|-------|------|--------|---------|
## Scoring Methods
| Metric | Method | Calibrated |
|--------|--------|------------|
## Harness Architecture
[Component diagram and config]
## Online Monitoring
| Signal | Source | Alert |
|--------|--------|-------|
## Regression Gates
| Gate | Criteria | Action |
|------|----------|--------|
## Baseline
[Version, scores, date established]Next Skills
| Outcome | Recommended Skill |
| Optimize cost after eval | ai/ai-cost-optimizer |
| Optimize latency after eval | ai/ai-latency-optimizer |
| Fix prompt quality issues | ai/prompt-reviewer |
| Review AI security risks | ai-security/llm-threat-modeler |
| Adjust workflow based on failures | ai/ai-workflow-builder |
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.

