Source profileQuality 94/100

lemma-work/lemma-platform/lemma-skills/lemma-evals/SKILL.md

lemma-evals

Design, run, and review repeatable evaluations for Lemma agents, functions, and workflows. Use when defining evaluation contracts and case datasets, comparing a baseline with a candidate revision or runtime, checking deterministic correctness or rubric-scored judgment, measuring repeated-run variance, testing delegated identity, RLS, grants and side-effect safety, driving human checkpoints, triaging regressions, or preserving durable run evidence. Do not use for browser or visual app QA, or for

Source repository stars
385
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
2
Last source update
2026-08-25
Source checked
2026-08-25

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Evaluate the behavior of a real Lemma workload under the identity, runtime, grants, data state, and approval policy it will have in use. Preserve the raw run identifiers and state behind every score; never reduce an evaluation to a prose impression.

Best for

  • Use when defining evaluation contracts and case datasets, comparing a baseline with a candidate revision or runtime, checking deterministic correctness or rubric-scored judgment, measuring repeated-run variance, testing…

Not for

  • Do not use for browser or visual app QA, or for

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/lemma-work/lemma-platform --skill "lemma-skills/lemma-evals"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "lemma-evals" from https://github.com/lemma-work/lemma-platform/blob/5c043f92da510041daad3b02637a371a2aae3f33/lemma-skills/lemma-evals/SKILL.md at commit 5c043f92da510041daad3b02637a371a2aae3f33. 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

    Define the contract first

    Write the evaluation contract before running a candidate. Read references/evaluation-contract.md when creating or reviewing the suite; use its artifact schemas as conventions, not as a Lemma API.

    the decision the evaluation gates and the target kind, name, pod, and environment;immutable baseline and candidate identities, or two versioned names/pods when thecase inputs, setup state, acting member, expected observable outcome, and cleanup;
  2. 02

    Snapshot the targets

    Capture definitions and permissions before execution. Prefer compact output while orienting; save JSON for the durable snapshot.

    Capture definitions and permissions before execution. Prefer compact output while orienting; save JSON for the durable snapshot.Record the agent instruction, toolsets, output schema, runtime profile, and grants; the function type, input/output schemas, code or revision identity, and grants; or the workflow start, nodes, edges, mappings, and call…Never overwrite the only baseline to create a candidate. Use an isolated eval pod, two versioned resources, or a reproducible bundle revision. Function schemas are not updated by ordinary upsert, so treat a schema chang…
  3. 03

    Build replayable cases

    Give every case a stable id. Keep the input separate from the expected result and scorer. Declare fixtures as data, not as undocumented shell history. Use unique case ids in created rows/files so state can be attributed and cleaned without broad deletes.

    Give every case a stable id. Keep the input separate from the expected result and scorer. Declare fixtures as data, not as undocumented shell history. Use unique case ids in created rows/files so state can be attributed…Keep team-wide cases in a shared pod folder such as /evals//cases.jsonl. Keep sensitive personal fixtures under the relevant member's /me; do not copy tokens, connector credentials, or another member's private data into…For identity-sensitive suites, declare an actor matrix. Run each case from a separately authenticated member context and confirm the returned userid where the run schema exposes it. Never simulate another member by edit…
  4. 04

    Choose the narrowest valid scorer

    Run deterministic checks before any model-based rubric:

    require the expected terminal status and absence or presence of a specific error;validate output schema, required fields, types, enums, numeric tolerances, andinspect the durable table/file/connector outcome, not only the returned text;
  5. 05

    Protect people and state

    Run read-only and deterministic cases first. For side-effecting cases:

    use an isolated pod, sandbox connector, draft-only path, or uniquely namespacedtake a before-state snapshot and declare the exact allowed delta;reset state between baseline, candidate, and repetitions, or prove the operation is

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

Reads files

low · line 86

The documentation asks the agent to read local files, directories, or repositories.

inspect the durable table/file/connector outcome, not only the returned text;

Writes files

medium · line 234

The documentation asks the agent to create, modify, or delete local files.

Create an append-only result folder such as

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score94/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars385SourceRepository 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
lemma-work/lemma-platform
Skill path
lemma-skills/lemma-evals/SKILL.md
Commit
5c043f92da510041daad3b02637a371a2aae3f33
License
AGPL-3.0
Collected
2026-08-25
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Lemma Evals

Evaluate the behavior of a real Lemma workload under the identity, runtime, grants, data state, and approval policy it will have in use. Preserve the raw run identifiers and state behind every score; never reduce an evaluation to a prose impression.

Use lemma-app-qa for browser journeys, layout, accessibility, and frontend defects. Use lemma-skill-creator for skill trigger and instruction-following tests. Use this skill for deployed agent, function, and workflow behavior, including any calls those workloads make to one another.

Define the contract first

Write the evaluation contract before running a candidate. Read references/evaluation-contract.md when creating or reviewing the suite; use its artifact schemas as conventions, not as a Lemma API.

Specify:

  • the decision the evaluation gates and the target kind, name, pod, and environment;
  • immutable baseline and candidate identities, or two versioned names/pods when the resource cannot be pinned in place;
  • case inputs, setup state, acting member, expected observable outcome, and cleanup;
  • required deterministic checks, rubric dimensions, thresholds, and critical invariants that no average may hide;
  • repeat count and aggregation for non-deterministic cases;
  • permitted side effects, approval points, stop conditions, and evidence retention.

Do not tune thresholds after seeing candidate outputs. Keep a holdout set when the same cases are used repeatedly for prompt or graph iteration. Include ordinary, boundary, malformed, denied-access, and recovery cases; a happy-path demo is not an evaluation suite.

Snapshot the targets

Capture definitions and permissions before execution. Prefer compact output while orienting; save JSON for the durable snapshot.

lemma --output json agents get <agent> --pod <pod>
lemma --output json agents permissions get <agent> --pod <pod>

lemma --output json functions get <function> --pod <pod>
lemma --output json functions permissions get <function> --pod <pod>

lemma --output json workflows get <workflow> --pod <pod>

Record the agent instruction, toolsets, output schema, runtime profile, and grants; the function type, input/output schemas, code or revision identity, and grants; or the workflow start, nodes, edges, mappings, and callees. Snapshot every called agent or function too. A workflow node runs as the workflow run owner but under the callee's own grants, so the graph alone does not describe its effective behavior.

Never overwrite the only baseline to create a candidate. Use an isolated eval pod, two versioned resources, or a reproducible bundle revision. Function schemas are not updated by ordinary upsert, so treat a schema change as a versioned target or recreate it deliberately outside the evaluation run.

Build replayable cases

Give every case a stable id. Keep the input separate from the expected result and scorer. Declare fixtures as data, not as undocumented shell history. Use unique case ids in created rows/files so state can be attributed and cleaned without broad deletes.

Keep team-wide cases in a shared pod folder such as /evals/<suite>/cases.jsonl. Keep sensitive personal fixtures under the relevant member's /me; do not copy tokens, connector credentials, or another member's private data into the suite. Use a shared results table only when the pod already models evaluations or the user has authorized that pod change.

For identity-sensitive suites, declare an actor matrix. Run each case from a separately authenticated member context and confirm the returned user_id where the run schema exposes it. Never simulate another member by editing expected owner ids or by placing their credentials in artifacts.

Choose the narrowest valid scorer

Run deterministic checks before any model-based rubric:

  • require the expected terminal status and absence or presence of a specific error;
  • validate output schema, required fields, types, enums, numeric tolerances, and invariant predicates;
  • inspect the durable table/file/connector outcome, not only the returned text;
  • assert the exact authorization denial code when denial is the expected behavior;
  • verify the expected workflow nodes, branch, wait, and approval transition.

Use a rubric only for judgment that cannot be expressed as a predicate. Define non-overlapping dimensions, anchored score levels, weights, must-pass dimensions, and evidence requirements. Blind the grader to baseline/candidate labels and case authors' preferred answer. Pin and record the grader instruction and runtime. Treat grader failure or malformed output as evaluation infrastructure failure, not target failure.

Do not exact-match free-form agent prose unless wording itself is the contract. Do not let a high style score compensate for an unauthorized read, unsafe action, fabricated citation, missing required field, or failed human gate.

Protect people and state

Run read-only and deterministic cases first. For side-effecting cases:

  • use an isolated pod, sandbox connector, draft-only path, or uniquely namespaced fixture whenever possible;
  • take a before-state snapshot and declare the exact allowed delta;
  • reset state between baseline, candidate, and repetitions, or prove the operation is idempotent;
  • require a human checkpoint before external sends, payments, destructive actions, member changes, or production connector writes;
  • stop on the first unexpected privileged or irreversible action.

Do not blanket-approve an agent while evaluating its approval behavior. Inspect lemma conversations approvals <conversation-id> and approve or deny the specific request with lemma conversations approve <approval-id> --conversation <conversation-id> (add --deny to reject). Always pass the approval id: omitting it resolves every pending request. Use session approval only when the contract explicitly requires it. An attempted unsafe action is evidence even if the platform blocks it.

Execute and collect native evidence

Use JSON output for captured run objects. Pass larger inputs with --file to avoid quoting drift.

Agents

lemma --output json agents run <agent> "<message>" --no-wait --pod <pod>
lemma --output json conversations get <conversation-id> --pod <pod>
lemma --output json conversations messages <conversation-id> --pod <pod>
lemma --output json conversations approvals <conversation-id> --pod <pod>
lemma conversations stream <conversation-id> --pod <pod>

Each agent run is a conversation. Preserve the returned conversation_id and agent_run_id, the transcript, structured output, tool/approval evidence, last_run_status, last_run_error, runtime, timestamps, and acting user_id. Start a fresh conversation per independent repetition; reuse one only when conversation memory is part of the contract.

Functions

lemma --output json functions run <function> --file <input.json> --pod <pod>
lemma --output json functions runs get <function> <run-id> --pod <pod>

The default waits for an async job; use --no-wait only when the harness will poll the run. Preserve status, input_data, output_data, logs, error, revision_hash, user_id, and the created/started/completed timestamps. A COMPLETED status does not prove the expected write occurred; query the affected record or file separately.

Workflows

lemma --output json workflows run <workflow> --file <form-input.json> --no-wait --pod <pod>
lemma --output json workflows runs get <run-id> --pod <pod>
lemma --output json workflows runs waiting --pod <pod>
lemma --output json workflows runs submit-form <run-id> --file <decision.json> --pod <pod>
lemma workflows runs cancel <run-id> --pod <pod>

Preserve status, user_id, current_node_id, failed_node_id, error, execution_context, step_history, active_wait, and timestamps. WAITING is the human-form state. Agent, function, and timer suspensions remain RUNNING and identify their platform work through active_wait.wait_type (AGENT, FUNCTION, or TIME). For a human gate, require active_wait.wait_type == HUMAN, verify that the intended assignee sees it in runs waiting, submit the documented decision as that member, and verify the next state. Do not interpret a still-running platform wait as failure.

Test delegated authority explicitly

Exercise authorization as a first-class contract, not only as failure debugging:

  • confirm RLS reads and writes resolve to the invoking member and do not expose another member's rows;
  • confirm /me resolves to that member's private tree;
  • confirm named agents and functions can access only explicitly granted resources;
  • expect MISSING_WORKLOAD_RESOURCE_GRANT for a missing workload grant and distinguish it from a member-role INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSION failure;
  • confirm connector calls use the intended user-owned or explicitly pinned account;
  • confirm called functions and agents use their own grants rather than inheriting the parent workload's grants.

Treat the built-in default pod assistant as the explicit exception: it has no named Agent entity or workload grants and mirrors the invoking member's pod permissions, while destructive actions still require approval. Record the member role and pod runtime instead of inventing a permission snapshot for it.

Run positive and negative cases. A suite that proves permitted access but never attempts forbidden access does not establish the boundary.

Repeat and compare fairly

Run deterministic functions once per fixture unless checking concurrency or flakiness. Run judgment-heavy agent cases at least three times by default; increase repetitions for rare safety failures or scores near the gate. Use identical actors, fixtures, runtime settings, grader, and case order policy for baseline and candidate. Randomize or alternate execution order when shared environmental drift could bias one side.

Report per-case pass rate, aggregate score, worst repetition, and variance. Report critical failures as counts and raw case ids; never average them away or cherry-pick the best completion. Mark timeouts, unavailable runtimes, grader errors, and fixture failures as infrastructure outcomes so they do not silently become zeros or passes.

Measure latency from native timestamps where available and also capture client wall-clock time. Record tokens and cost only when an emitted run event or authorized usage view attributes them unambiguously to the run; otherwise store null. Do not reconstruct billed cost from a guessed model price.

Triage regressions from evidence

Replay one failing candidate case against a fresh fixture before generalizing. Compare the raw baseline and candidate evidence, then classify the first divergence as one of:

  • contract or case defect;
  • fixture/data drift;
  • acting identity, RLS, grant, or connector-account difference;
  • target definition, runtime, model, or tool availability change;
  • function error or revision mismatch;
  • workflow mapping, branch, callee, wait, or form transition failure;
  • scorer, grader, timeout, or collection failure.

For functions, start with error, logs, and revision_hash. For workflows, start with failed_node_id, error, step_history, and active_wait; follow an AGENT wait to its conversation and a FUNCTION wait to its function run. For agents, start with last_run_status, last_run_error, transcript, tool calls, approvals, and runtime. Fix or exclude broken evaluation infrastructure before judging the candidate.

Preserve and report

Create an append-only result folder such as /evals/<suite>/<timestamp>-<evaluation-id>/ containing:

  • the contract and exact case dataset or content hash;
  • baseline, candidate, callee, permission, runtime, and grader snapshots;
  • one machine-readable result record per case and repetition;
  • raw run/conversation ids plus redacted evidence needed to reproduce each score;
  • a short report with the gate decision, deltas, critical failures, variance, infrastructure errors, and recommended action.

Upload local artifacts with lemma files upload; do not leave the only copy in a temporary workspace. Redact secrets and unnecessary personal content, but retain stable ids and hashes. State whether the candidate passes the predeclared gate, passes with accepted risk, or fails. Never claim statistical confidence that the sample size does not support.

Frequently asked questions

What to verify before installation and use

What does the lemma-evals source document cover?

Evaluate the behavior of a real Lemma workload under the identity, runtime, grants, data state, and approval policy it will have in use. Preserve the raw run identifiers and state behind every score; never reduce an evaluation to a prose impression.

How do I install lemma-evals?

The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/lemma-work/lemma-platform --skill "lemma-skills/lemma-evals". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Which permission-related actions were detected?

Static rules flagged read-files, write-files in the source; the page lists the matching lines and excerpts.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 10045,511

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

ab-testing

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

Computed 1008

narrative-io/narrative-skills-marketplace

design-analysis

Translate a fuzzy analytical question into a rigorous investigation plan. Interrogates the ask, grounds the plan in the available data dictionary, applies analytical best practices, and produces a structured brief of query specifications for a downstream query-writing skill. Plans, does not write SQL. Use when: "why did X drop", "is there a relationship between A and B", "who are our highest-value customers", "what's driving the change in Y", "investigate this trend", "design an analysis for", "

Computed 9980

vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public

qa-testing-ios

Guides iOS testing with XCTest, XCUITest, Swift Testing, simctl, and xcresult. Use when choosing destinations, controlling flakes, or parsing test artifacts for native apps.

Computed 9880

vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public

foundations-consumer-neuroscience

Consumer-neuroscience primitives for attention, arousal, bonding, narrative, memory, and reward. Use when shaping ethical UX, neuro study design, or DMCC/AI Act gates.