Best for
- Measuring LLM application performance systematically
- Comparing different models or prompts
- Detecting performance regressions before deployment
wshobson/agents/plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation/SKILL.md
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.
Decision brief
Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.
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/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation"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
python from dataclasses import dataclass from typing import Callable import numpy as np
suite = EvaluationSuite([ Metric.accuracy(), Metric.bleu(), Metric.bertscore(), Metric.custom("groundedness", checkgroundedness) ])
Measuring LLM application performance systematically
Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.
Permission review
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
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 78/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 38,313 | 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
Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.
Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.
Text Generation:
Classification:
Retrieval (RAG):
Manual assessment for quality aspects difficult to automate.
Dimensions:
Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs.
Approaches:
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 pattern documentation lives in references/details.md. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.
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 BEFORE writing/changing tests, adding mocks, or test-only methods on production classes — vs mocking-the-mock, production pollution, partial mocks, and overfit/tautological assertions
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 when writing, generating, or improving Pest tests for Laravel — clear intent, good coverage, maintainable structure, and alignment with project testing conventions.