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…
lemma-work/lemma-platform/lemma-skills/lemma-evals/SKILL.md
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
Decision brief
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.
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/lemma-work/lemma-platform --skill "lemma-skills/lemma-evals"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
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.
Capture definitions and permissions before execution. Prefer compact output while orienting; save JSON for the durable snapshot.
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.
Run deterministic checks before any model-based rubric:
Run read-only and deterministic cases first. For side-effecting cases:
Permission review
The documentation asks the agent to read local files, directories, or repositories.
inspect the durable table/file/connector outcome, not only the returned text;The documentation asks the agent to create, modify, or delete local files.
Create an append-only result folder such asEvidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 94/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 385 | 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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Run deterministic checks before any model-based rubric:
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.
Run read-only and deterministic cases first. For side-effecting cases:
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.
Use JSON output for captured run objects. Pass larger inputs with --file to avoid
quoting drift.
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.
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.
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.
Exercise authorization as a first-class contract, not only as failure debugging:
/me resolves to that member's private tree;MISSING_WORKLOAD_RESOURCE_GRANT for a missing workload grant and
distinguish it from a member-role INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSION failure;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.
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.
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:
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.
Create an append-only result folder such as
/evals/<suite>/<timestamp>-<evaluation-id>/ containing:
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
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.
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.
Static rules flagged read-files, write-files in the source; the page lists the matching lines and excerpts.
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
narrative-io/narrative-skills-marketplace
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", "
vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public
Guides iOS testing with XCTest, XCUITest, Swift Testing, simctl, and xcresult. Use when choosing destinations, controlling flakes, or parsing test artifacts for native apps.
vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public
Consumer-neuroscience primitives for attention, arousal, bonding, narrative, memory, and reward. Use when shaping ethical UX, neuro study design, or DMCC/AI Act gates.