agentleFS
yohei1126yohei1126/agent-skills/llm-evaluation/SKILL.md

llm-evaluation

Skill2 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when drafting or revising a technical article that reports LLM or pipeline evaluation measurements: accuracy, latency, token counts, cost, or a comparison of models or configs. Cite only supplied logs or public sources, state sample size and the exact condition set, and keep deterministic runs separate from live model runs.

20 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use code-review.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • GoogleSkill

    code-review

    Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 18 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    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:

    Never invent, round up, or fabricate a number.

    line 25
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep deterministic or mechanical arms separate from live LLM arms.

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not treat one condition as proof about other models or versions.

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer a pointer to the harness or scripts in the product repository.

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep the write-up reusable.

    line 31
  6. Distinctive:

    If the author did not supply a source, do not fill the gap with a plausible value.

    line 41

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 18 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Reporting LLM and eval measurements

Generic guidance for drafting or revising articles that cite LLM or pipeline evaluation numbers. This skill is not a product harness. Point at the scripts and logs in the product repository instead of copying a runbook here.

When to use

  • The draft reports accuracy, latency, token, or cost numbers from an evaluation
  • The draft compares models, prompts, schemas, or other configs
  • You are revising a post that already quotes those measurements

Skip this skill when the article cites no measured LLM or pipeline numbers.

Rules

  1. Never invent, round up, or fabricate a number. Use only measurement logs, scripts, or public sources the author supplies. If a figure is missing, leave it out or say it was not measured.
  2. State the sample size. One run is a one-run or single run. Two or more runs get the mean and the min–max (or an equivalent range), plus how many runs.
  3. Name the exact condition set, enough to reproduce: model id as measured, prompt or schema policy, dataset, track, or split, and package or version when it matters.
  4. Keep deterministic or mechanical arms separate from live LLM arms. Do not remeasure one as the other, and do not blend them as if they were the same kind of run.
  5. Do not treat one condition as proof about other models or versions. Say what held under the measured condition and what did not.
  6. Prefer a pointer to the harness or scripts in the product repository. Do not embed a long runbook in the article or in this skill.
  7. Keep the write-up reusable. Leave out assistant-specific operations, private marketing strategy, and paths that exist only for one assistant.

What to write next to each number

  • The quantity and its unit
  • Where it came from (log, script output, or public source the author supplied)
  • How many runs, and whether the figure is a single run or a mean with a range
  • The condition set from rule 3
  • Whether the arm was deterministic or mechanical, or a live model call

If the author did not supply a source, do not fill the gap with a plausible value.

Pre-publish checklist

  • Every number traces to a log, script, or public source the author supplied
  • Nothing was invented, rounded up, or filled in because it looked reasonable
  • Sample size is explicit (one-run, or mean plus min–max and the run count)
  • Model id, prompt or schema policy, dataset or split, and relevant versions are named
  • Deterministic arms and live LLM arms stay separate
  • Claims stay inside the measured condition, including what failed or was not tried
  • Reproduction detail points at the product harness or scripts

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.