Skip to content
Skillpedia
Agents40k · #4989

agentic-eval

Helps your agent evaluate and improve its own outputs. It implements self-evaluation loops to refine results.

What it does

This tool helps AI check and improve its own answers. It allows the AI to learn from its mistakes and create higher-quality outputs, like more accurate text or code.

When to use it

  • ✓When you need very accurate answers (e.g., reports, code).
  • ✓When there are clear rules to know if the answer is good.
  • ✓When the answer needs to follow a specific standard (e.g., style, format).

Example of what to ask your AI

“Check this text and tell me if it's clear and error-free, following these rules: [rules].”

Want more? Open the sections below.

How to use

The easiest way: copy the message below and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor or any AI. It reads the skill and follows the instructions.

Skill link

https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/main/skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md

Ready-to-paste message

Use this skill to help me: https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/main/skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md Read the SKILL.md file at that link and follow its instructions for my task.
How it works

The AI generates an answer, then self-evaluates based on defined criteria. If it's not good enough, it tries to correct it and improves until it reaches the desired quality.

Installation

Easiest way: copy the skill link and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor asking it to follow the instructions.

In the terminal (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor), in your project folder:

npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill agentic-eval

Or download just the file:

curl -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/github/awesome-copilot/main/skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md -o SKILL.md
Technical content (original SKILL.md)

Original text by the author, straight from GitHub.

Agentic Evaluation Patterns

Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.

Overview

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
    ↑                              │
    └──────────────────────────────┘

When to Use

  • 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

Pattern 1: Basic Reflection

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.


Pattern 2: Evaluator-Optimizer

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

Pattern 3: Code-Specific Reflection

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

Evaluation Strategies

Outcome-Based

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}")

LLM-as-Judge

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?")

Rubric-Based

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

Best Practices

Practice Rationale

…

FAQ

How does the AI know if the answer is good?

It uses defined criteria, like game rules or a checklist, to self-assess.

What happens if the AI can't improve the answer?

It can try a limited number of times. If it's still not good, it provides the best result it could achieve or reports that the goal wasn't met.

Does this work for any type of answer?

It works best for tasks where quality can be objectively measured, like writing code or generating reports with specific data.

Details

Original description by the author

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) -

repo: github/awesome-copilot

Popularity

GitHub stars
40k
Ranking position
#4989
License
MIT
Updated
10/15/2026

Is this skill useful?

0

Sign in to vote.

Comments

  • …

More skills from this repository

Similar skills