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
- ControllableModel/SWE-Skills-Benchtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nicholas-greenwood/agentic-engineering-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- KMaruthi2002/universal-llm-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- KumailQazi/krmaazha-binance-mcptheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- asmamest/Nexus-Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- paulopestanajunior/agents-configtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
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.
GoogleSkillcode-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
Other versions20 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 20
- kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding★ 35same name
- nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection★ 33same name
- ckorhonen/claude-skills★ 17same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- ControllableModel/SWE-Skills-Bench★ 8same name
- KumailQazi/krmaazha-binance-mcp★ 4same name
- nicholas-greenwood/agentic-engineering-skills★ 3same name
- ai4brands-design/claude-skills★ 2same name
- CodeWithBehnam/cc-docs★ 2same name
- Ghosteken/agent-harness★ 2same name
10 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- confluence-operationsSkill
- devto-articleSkill
- download-website-to-markdownSkill
- english-tech-blog-structureSkill
- linkedin-articleSkill
- md-deckSkill
- pdf-to-markdownSkill
- repo-security-auditSkill
- sales-agentSkill
- threat-model-attack-reviewSkill
- visual-colorSkill
- visual-diagramSkill
- zenn-articleSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 25
Never invent, round up, or fabricate a number.
- Distinctive: line 28
Keep deterministic or mechanical arms separate from live LLM arms.
- Distinctive: line 29
Do not treat one condition as proof about other models or versions.
- Distinctive: line 30
Prefer a pointer to the harness or scripts in the product repository.
- Distinctive: line 31
Keep the write-up reusable.
- Distinctive: line 41
If the author did not supply a source, do not fill the gap with a plausible value.
“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.
Files
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Do not treat one condition as proof about other models or versions. Say what held under the measured condition and what did not.
- 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.
- 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
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.

