agentleFS
peterbamuhigirepeterbamuhigire/chwezi-dev-engine/skills/ai/ai-agent-observability-evaluation/SKILL.md

ai-agent-observability-evaluation

Skill31 starsChanged 18 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when measuring, evaluating, replaying, evidencing, or tracking success for AI agent tasks, steps, traces, and outcomes.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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:

    Default to read-only analysis.

    line 32
  2. Distinctive:

    When required telemetry, evidence, execution, network access, or write authority is unavailable, return a partial result with each …

    line 36
  3. Very specific:

    Read this SKILL.md first.

    line 78
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep routing explicit: name which reference files were used when the work depends on absorbed material.

    line 85
  5. Distinctive:

    Prefer concrete contracts, checklists, tables, schemas, runbooks, and decision records over broad summaries.

    line 87

≈ “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

AI Agent Observability Evaluation

Operating contract

Inputs

InputRequiredPurpose
Domain evidenceyestask contract, trace schema, evaluation dataset, success thresholds, privacy rules, and sampling window

Outputs

  • Produce: trace and outcome scorecard, failure taxonomy, replay evidence, regressions, and release recommendation.

Skill-specific outputs:

  • A concrete deliverable matched to the request: architecture, implementation plan, audit, policy, runbook, UX flow, test strategy, or operating model.
  • The selected consolidated reference files and any assumptions, risks, evidence requirements, or follow-up actions that affect execution.

Capability and permission boundaries

Default to read-only analysis. Read only scoped records; redact secrets and regulated data. Writes, execution, network calls, production configuration, customer communication, billing changes, and delegation require explicit authority and an identified owner. Never widen tenant, time-window, or system scope implicitly.

Degraded mode

When required telemetry, evidence, execution, network access, or write authority is unavailable, return a partial result with each unassessed item labelled, preserve the safest existing state, and state the evidence or approval needed to continue. Never convert missing evidence into a pass.

Decision rules

ConditionAction
Scope, owner, or threshold is missingStop the affected decision and request it
Evidence is incomplete but read-only analysis is safeProduce a qualified partial result and gap list
A mutation exceeds authority or tenant boundaryBlock it and route for approval
Evidence meets the stated thresholdIssue the output with provenance and owner

Anti-Patterns

  • Treating absent evidence as success. Fix: mark the check unassessed and name the missing source.
  • Expanding one tenant or workflow to all tenants. Fix: enforce supplied scope at every query and action.
  • Performing a production write during analysis. Fix: emit a reviewed change plan until authority is explicit.
  • Reporting a metric without population, window, or source. Fix: attach all three.
  • Hiding a failed threshold inside an average. Fix: report failure slices and the remediation owner.

Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178.

<!-- dual-compat-start -->

Use When

  • Design agent evals, task-success metrics, traces, replay, evidence capture, and regression gates.
  • Instrument agent runs with events, step logs, artifacts, and customer-visible status.
  • Turn agent execution evidence into QA, audit, incident, or product-quality signals.

Do Not Use When

  • The work is not AI-specific or agentic-AI-specific.
  • A narrower retained AI parent skill fits the request better.

Required Inputs

  • Product, tenant, user, data, risk, and operational context relevant to the AI workflow.
  • Target artifact: design, implementation plan, audit, test strategy, UX flow, commercial policy, or runbook.
  • Constraints from security, privacy, reliability, billing, support, and compliance stakeholders when relevant.

Workflow

  1. Read this SKILL.md first.
  2. Load references/routing.md to select the absorbed child reference that matches the task.
  3. Load only the selected child reference files needed for the current request.
  4. Produce execution-oriented output with assumptions, risks, evidence, and next actions where relevant.

Quality Standards

  • Keep routing explicit: name which reference files were used when the work depends on absorbed material.
  • Preserve tenant isolation, auditability, cost controls, safety gates, and operational evidence when they matter.
  • Prefer concrete contracts, checklists, tables, schemas, runbooks, and decision records over broad summaries.

Anti-Patterns

  • Loading every absorbed reference by default.
  • Treating AI-specific billing, compliance, safety, or UX concerns as generic SaaS work without checking AI failure modes.
  • Hiding retired skill names; old slugs must remain discoverable through references/routing.md.

References

  • references/routing.md maps retired child skill slugs to their consolidated reference folders.

Consolidated Child References

  • Load references/routing.md to map retired AI child skill slugs to their reference modules.

Evidence Produced

CategoryArtifactFormatExample
CorrectnessAgent evaluation and replay reportMarkdown plus run artefactstask-success, unsafe-action, cost, latency, replay, and regression results
<!-- dual-compat-end -->

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.