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
github/awesome-copilot/skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md
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
Decision brief
Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill "skills/agentic-eval"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
Review the “Quick Start Checklist” section in the pinned source before continuing.
[ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric
[ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric
[ ] Implement generate() function
Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy
Permission review
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
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 81/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 37,126 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.
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
↑ │
└──────────────────────────────┘
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.
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
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
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}")
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?")
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
| Practice | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Clear criteria | Define specific, measurable evaluation criteria upfront |
| Iteration limits | Set max iterations (3-5) to prevent infinite loops |
| Convergence check | Stop if output score isn't improving between iterations |
| Log history | Keep full trajectory for debugging and analysis |
| Structured output | Use JSON for reliable parsing of evaluation results |
## 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
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.
event4u-app/agent-config
Use BEFORE editing shared code — enumerates every call site, event consumer, queue worker, API client, migration, and test that a planned change will touch, with a file:line citation per dependency.
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when the user shares a Sentry error, Jira bug ticket, or error description and wants root cause analysis. Also for proactive bug hunting and code audits for hidden bugs.