Source profileQuality 81/100

github/awesome-copilot/skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md

agentic-eval

Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs. Use this skill when: - Implementing self-critique and reflection loops - Building evaluator-optimizer pipelines for quality-critical generation - Creating test-driven code refinement workflows - Designing rubric-based or LLM-as-judge evaluation systems - Adding iterative improvement to agent outputs (code, reports, analysis) - Measuring and improving agent response quality

Source repository stars
37,126
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-07-28
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.

Best for

  • Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy
  • Tasks with clear evaluation criteria: Defined success metrics exist
  • Content requiring specific standards: Style guides, compliance, formatting

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill "skills/agentic-eval"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "agentic-eval" from https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685/skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md at commit 9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Quick Start Checklist

    Review the “Quick Start Checklist” section in the pinned source before continuing.

    Review and apply the “Quick Start Checklist” source section.
  2. 02

    Evaluation Implementation Checklist

    [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric

    [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric[ ] Set score threshold for "good enough"[ ] Configure max iterations (default: 3)
  3. 03

    Setup

    [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric

    [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric[ ] Set score threshold for "good enough"[ ] Configure max iterations (default: 3)
  4. 04

    Implementation

    [ ] Implement generate() function

    [ ] Implement generate() function[ ] Implement evaluate() function with structured output[ ] Implement optimize() function
  5. 05

    When to Use

    Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy

    Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracyTasks with clear evaluation criteria: Defined success metrics existContent requiring specific standards: Style guides, compliance, formatting

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score81/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars37,126SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
github/awesome-copilot
Skill path
skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md
Commit
9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685
License
MIT
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Agentic Evaluation Patterns

Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.

Overview

Evaluation patterns enable agents to assess and improve their own outputs, moving beyond single-shot generation to iterative refinement loops.

Generate → Evaluate → Critique → Refine → Output
    ↑                              │
    └──────────────────────────────┘

When to Use

  • Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy
  • Tasks with clear evaluation criteria: Defined success metrics exist
  • Content requiring specific standards: Style guides, compliance, formatting

Pattern 1: Basic Reflection

Agent evaluates and improves its own output through self-critique.

def reflect_and_refine(task: str, criteria: list[str], max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
    """Generate with reflection loop."""
    output = llm(f"Complete this task:\n{task}")
    
    for i in range(max_iterations):
        # Self-critique
        critique = llm(f"""
        Evaluate this output against criteria: {criteria}
        Output: {output}
        Rate each: PASS/FAIL with feedback as JSON.
        """)
        
        critique_data = json.loads(critique)
        all_pass = all(c["status"] == "PASS" for c in critique_data.values())
        if all_pass:
            return output
        
        # Refine based on critique
        failed = {k: v["feedback"] for k, v in critique_data.items() if v["status"] == "FAIL"}
        output = llm(f"Improve to address: {failed}\nOriginal: {output}")
    
    return output

Key insight: Use structured JSON output for reliable parsing of critique results.


Pattern 2: Evaluator-Optimizer

Separate generation and evaluation into distinct components for clearer responsibilities.

class EvaluatorOptimizer:
    def __init__(self, score_threshold: float = 0.8):
        self.score_threshold = score_threshold
    
    def generate(self, task: str) -> str:
        return llm(f"Complete: {task}")
    
    def evaluate(self, output: str, task: str) -> dict:
        return json.loads(llm(f"""
        Evaluate output for task: {task}
        Output: {output}
        Return JSON: {{"overall_score": 0-1, "dimensions": {{"accuracy": ..., "clarity": ...}}}}
        """))
    
    def optimize(self, output: str, feedback: dict) -> str:
        return llm(f"Improve based on feedback: {feedback}\nOutput: {output}")
    
    def run(self, task: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
        output = self.generate(task)
        for _ in range(max_iterations):
            evaluation = self.evaluate(output, task)
            if evaluation["overall_score"] >= self.score_threshold:
                break
            output = self.optimize(output, evaluation)
        return output

Pattern 3: Code-Specific Reflection

Test-driven refinement loop for code generation.

class CodeReflector:
    def reflect_and_fix(self, spec: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
        code = llm(f"Write Python code for: {spec}")
        tests = llm(f"Generate pytest tests for: {spec}\nCode: {code}")
        
        for _ in range(max_iterations):
            result = run_tests(code, tests)
            if result["success"]:
                return code
            code = llm(f"Fix error: {result['error']}\nCode: {code}")
        return code

Evaluation Strategies

Outcome-Based

Evaluate whether output achieves the expected result.

def evaluate_outcome(task: str, output: str, expected: str) -> str:
    return llm(f"Does output achieve expected outcome? Task: {task}, Expected: {expected}, Output: {output}")

LLM-as-Judge

Use LLM to compare and rank outputs.

def llm_judge(output_a: str, output_b: str, criteria: str) -> str:
    return llm(f"Compare outputs A and B for {criteria}. Which is better and why?")

Rubric-Based

Score outputs against weighted dimensions.

RUBRIC = {
    "accuracy": {"weight": 0.4},
    "clarity": {"weight": 0.3},
    "completeness": {"weight": 0.3}
}

def evaluate_with_rubric(output: str, rubric: dict) -> float:
    scores = json.loads(llm(f"Rate 1-5 for each dimension: {list(rubric.keys())}\nOutput: {output}"))
    return sum(scores[d] * rubric[d]["weight"] for d in rubric) / 5

Best Practices

PracticeRationale
Clear criteriaDefine specific, measurable evaluation criteria upfront
Iteration limitsSet max iterations (3-5) to prevent infinite loops
Convergence checkStop if output score isn't improving between iterations
Log historyKeep full trajectory for debugging and analysis
Structured outputUse JSON for reliable parsing of evaluation results

Quick Start Checklist

## Evaluation Implementation Checklist

### Setup
- [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric
- [ ] Set score threshold for "good enough"
- [ ] Configure max iterations (default: 3)

### Implementation
- [ ] Implement generate() function
- [ ] Implement evaluate() function with structured output
- [ ] Implement optimize() function
- [ ] Wire up the refinement loop

### Safety
- [ ] Add convergence detection
- [ ] Log all iterations for debugging
- [ ] Handle evaluation parse failures gracefully

Alternatives

Compare before choosing