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
Ready-to-paste message
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-evalOr download just the file:
curl -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/github/awesome-copilot/main/skills/agentic-eval/SKILL.md -o SKILL.mdTechnical 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
Comments
- …
More skills from this repository
acquire-codebase-knowledge
Helps your agent understand and document an existing code project. It's useful for onboarding new people or getting an overview of the architecture.
github/awesome-copilot
acreadiness-assess
Enables your agent to assess a project's readiness for AI and generate a report. It's useful for understanding how well a project is prepared to use AI tools.
github/awesome-copilot
acreadiness-generate-instructions
Helps your agent create instructions for AI tools based on an assessment. It's useful for improving how AI interacts with code and closing identified gaps.
github/awesome-copilot
acreadiness-policy
Enables your agent to help define or apply policies for AI project assessment. It's useful for standardizing how projects are evaluated and ensuring compliance.
github/awesome-copilot
Similar skills
agent-architecture-audit
Makes your agent check if everything is working correctly. It finds and fixes problems in AI systems, ensuring they perform as expected.
affaan-m/ECC
agent-eval
Helps your agent compare different AI coding tools. It measures which one is faster, cheaper, and more reliable for specific tasks.
affaan-m/ECC
agent-harness-construction
Makes your agent better understand how to perform tasks. It optimizes the tools and instructions the agent uses to increase its chances of success.
affaan-m/ECC