Source profileQuality 78/100

wshobson/agents/plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation/SKILL.md

llm-evaluation

Implement comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications using automated metrics, human feedback, and benchmarking. Use when testing LLM performance, measuring AI application quality, or establishing evaluation frameworks.

Source repository stars
38,313
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
1
Last source update
2026-07-22
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.

Best for

  • Measuring LLM application performance systematically
  • Comparing different models or prompts
  • Detecting performance regressions before deployment

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/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "llm-evaluation" from https://github.com/wshobson/agents/blob/c4b82b0ad771190355eb8e204b1329732a18449a/plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation/SKILL.md at commit c4b82b0ad771190355eb8e204b1329732a18449a. 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

    python from dataclasses import dataclass from typing import Callable import numpy as np

    python from dataclasses import dataclass from typing import Callable import numpy as np@dataclass class Metric: name: str fn: Callable@staticmethod def accuracy(): return Metric("accuracy", calculateaccuracy)
  2. 02

    Usage

    suite = EvaluationSuite([ Metric.accuracy(), Metric.bleu(), Metric.bertscore(), Metric.custom("groundedness", checkgroundedness) ])

    suite = EvaluationSuite([ Metric.accuracy(), Metric.bleu(), Metric.bertscore(), Metric.custom("groundedness", checkgroundedness) ])testcases = [ { "input": "What is the capital of France?", "expected": "Paris", "context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital." }, ]results = await suite.evaluate(model=yourmodel, testcases=testcases)
  3. 03

    When to Use This Skill

    Measuring LLM application performance systematically

    Measuring LLM application performance systematicallyComparing different models or promptsDetecting performance regressions before deployment
  4. 04

    Core Evaluation Types

    Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.

    BLEU: N-gram overlap (translation)ROUGE: Recall-oriented (summarization)METEOR: Semantic similarity

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

Reads files

low · line 139

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

Detailed pattern documentation lives in `references/details.md`. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score78/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars38,313SourceRepository 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
wshobson/agents
Skill path
plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation/SKILL.md
Commit
c4b82b0ad771190355eb8e204b1329732a18449a
License
MIT
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

LLM Evaluation

Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.

When to Use This Skill

  • Measuring LLM application performance systematically
  • Comparing different models or prompts
  • Detecting performance regressions before deployment
  • Validating improvements from prompt changes
  • Building confidence in production systems
  • Establishing baselines and tracking progress over time
  • Debugging unexpected model behavior

Core Evaluation Types

1. Automated Metrics

Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.

Text Generation:

  • BLEU: N-gram overlap (translation)
  • ROUGE: Recall-oriented (summarization)
  • METEOR: Semantic similarity
  • BERTScore: Embedding-based similarity
  • Perplexity: Language model confidence

Classification:

  • Accuracy: Percentage correct
  • Precision/Recall/F1: Class-specific performance
  • Confusion Matrix: Error patterns
  • AUC-ROC: Ranking quality

Retrieval (RAG):

  • MRR: Mean Reciprocal Rank
  • NDCG: Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain
  • Precision@K: Relevant in top K
  • Recall@K: Coverage in top K

2. Human Evaluation

Manual assessment for quality aspects difficult to automate.

Dimensions:

  • Accuracy: Factual correctness
  • Coherence: Logical flow
  • Relevance: Answers the question
  • Fluency: Natural language quality
  • Safety: No harmful content
  • Helpfulness: Useful to the user

3. LLM-as-Judge

Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs.

Approaches:

  • Pointwise: Score individual responses
  • Pairwise: Compare two responses
  • Reference-based: Compare to gold standard
  • Reference-free: Judge without ground truth

Quick Start

from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Callable
import numpy as np

@dataclass
class Metric:
    name: str
    fn: Callable

    @staticmethod
    def accuracy():
        return Metric("accuracy", calculate_accuracy)

    @staticmethod
    def bleu():
        return Metric("bleu", calculate_bleu)

    @staticmethod
    def bertscore():
        return Metric("bertscore", calculate_bertscore)

    @staticmethod
    def custom(name: str, fn: Callable):
        return Metric(name, fn)

class EvaluationSuite:
    def __init__(self, metrics: list[Metric]):
        self.metrics = metrics

    async def evaluate(self, model, test_cases: list[dict]) -> dict:
        results = {m.name: [] for m in self.metrics}

        for test in test_cases:
            prediction = await model.predict(test["input"])

            for metric in self.metrics:
                score = metric.fn(
                    prediction=prediction,
                    reference=test.get("expected"),
                    context=test.get("context")
                )
                results[metric.name].append(score)

        return {
            "metrics": {k: np.mean(v) for k, v in results.items()},
            "raw_scores": results
        }

# Usage
suite = EvaluationSuite([
    Metric.accuracy(),
    Metric.bleu(),
    Metric.bertscore(),
    Metric.custom("groundedness", check_groundedness)
])

test_cases = [
    {
        "input": "What is the capital of France?",
        "expected": "Paris",
        "context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital."
    },
]

results = await suite.evaluate(model=your_model, test_cases=test_cases)

Detailed patterns and worked examples

Detailed pattern documentation lives in references/details.md. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing