evaluation
Lets your agent create systems to test its own performance. It helps validate configuration choices and measure improvements over time.
What it does
This tool helps create a system for testing the performance of AI "agents." It allows you to check if the instructions given to the agents are working well and if they are improving over time.
When to use it
- ✓When you want to test how well an AI agent is performing.
- ✓To check if the instructions you gave the agent are correct.
- ✓To see if the agent is getting better after some changes.
Example of what to ask your AI
“Create a test to see if the agent can find information about the weather in São Paulo.”
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
It works by defining what a good outcome is and how to measure if the agent achieved it. This can involve checking the accuracy of information, the efficiency of tool usage, and the overall quality of the response.
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 sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills --skill evaluationOr download just the file:
curl -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills/main/plugins/agentic-awesome-skills-claude/skills/evaluation/SKILL.md -o SKILL.mdTechnical content (original SKILL.md)
Original text by the author, straight from GitHub.
When to Use This Skill
Build evaluation frameworks for agent systems
Use this skill when working with build evaluation frameworks for agent systems.
Evaluation Methods for Agent Systems
Evaluation of agent systems requires different approaches than traditional software or even standard language model applications. Agents make dynamic decisions, are non-deterministic between runs, and often lack single correct answers. Effective evaluation must account for these characteristics while providing actionable feedback. A robust evaluation framework enables continuous improvement, catches regressions, and validates that context engineering choices achieve intended effects.
When to Use
Activate this skill when:
- Testing agent performance systematically
- Validating context engineering choices
- Measuring improvements over time
- Catching regressions before deployment
- Building quality gates for agent pipelines
- Comparing different agent configurations
- Evaluating production systems continuously
Core Concepts
Agent evaluation requires outcome-focused approaches that account for non-determinism and multiple valid paths. Multi-dimensional rubrics capture various quality aspects: factual accuracy, completeness, citation accuracy, source quality, and tool efficiency. LLM-as-judge provides scalable evaluation while human evaluation catches edge cases.
The key insight is that agents may find alternative paths to goals—the evaluation should judge whether they achieve right outcomes while following reasonable processes.
Performance Drivers: The 95% Finding Research on the BrowseComp evaluation (which tests browsing agents' ability to locate hard-to-find information) found that three factors explain 95% of performance variance:
| Factor | Variance Explained | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Token usage | 80% | More tokens = better performance |
| Number of tool calls | ~10% | More exploration helps |
| Model choice | ~5% | Better models multiply efficiency |
This finding has significant implications for evaluation design:
- Token budgets matter: Evaluate agents with realistic token budgets, not unlimited resources
- Model upgrades beat token increases: Upgrading to Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GPT-5.2 provides larger gains than doubling token budgets on previous versions
- Multi-agent validation: The finding validates architectures that distribute work across agents with separate context windows
Detailed Topics
Evaluation Challenges
Non-Determinism and Multiple Valid Paths Agents may take completely different valid paths to reach goals. One agent might search three sources while another searches ten. They might use different tools to find the same answer. Traditional evaluations that check for specific steps fail in this context.
The solution is outcome-focused evaluation that judges whether agents achieve right outcomes while following reasonable processes.
Context-Dependent Failures Agent failures often depend on context in subtle ways. An agent might succeed on simple queries but fail on complex ones. It might work well with one tool set but fail with another. Failures may emerge only after extended interaction when context accumulates.
Evaluation must cover a range of complexity levels and test extended interactions, not just isolated queries.
Composite Quality Dimensions Agent quality is not a single dimension. It includes factual accuracy, completeness, coherence, tool efficiency, and process quality. An agent might score high on accuracy but low in efficiency, or vice versa.
Evaluation rubrics must capture multiple dimensions with appropriate weighting for the use case.
Evaluation Rubric Design
Multi-Dimensional Rubric Effective rubrics cover key dimensions with descriptive levels:
Factual accuracy: Claims match ground truth (excellent to failed)
Completeness: Output covers requested aspects (excellent to failed)
Citation accuracy: Citations match claimed sources (excellent to failed)
Source quality: Uses appropriate primary sources (excellent to failed)
Tool efficiency: Uses right tools reasonable number of times (excellent to failed)
Rubric Scoring Convert dimension assessments to numeric scores (0.0 to 1.0) with appropriate weighting. Calculate weighted overall scores. Determine passing threshold based on use case requirements.
Evaluation Methodologies
LLM-as-Judge
…
FAQ
Why are AI agents different from normal programs to test?
AI agents make decisions that can change each time they run, and there isn't always a single right answer. Tests need to account for this.
What is 'LLM-as-judge'?
It's using a large language model (like Claude itself) to evaluate the agent's responses, making testing faster and more scalable.
What are 'quality dimensions'?
These are different aspects that measure the quality of a response, such as whether the information is correct (accuracy), if it's complete, if the sources are good, and if the tools were used efficiently.
Details
Original description by the author
Build evaluation frameworks for agent systems. Use when testing agent performance systematically, validating context engineering choices, or measuring improvements over time.
Popularity
- GitHub stars
- 48k
- Ranking position
- #2940
- License
- MIT
- Updated
- 10/15/2026
Comments
- …
More skills from this repository
00-andruia-consultant
Helps your agent start or improve AI projects. It analyzes code, suggests tools, and creates action plans in Spanish.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
007
Lets your agent perform security audits and threat modeling. It's useful for protecting projects against attacks and vulnerabilities.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
10-andruia-skill-smith
Helps your agent create or improve AI tools. It defines how tools work, writes documentation, and validates the structure.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
20-andruia-niche-intelligence
Lets your agent create a summary about a specific industry. It's useful for understanding the context, rules, usage patterns, and risks of a project, using reliable sources.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Similar skills
dashboard-builder
Helps your agent create useful monitoring dashboards. It turns data into charts that answer important system questions.
affaan-m/ECC
dev-team
Simulates a collaborative development team where different roles respond to a problem together. It's useful for getting multiple perspectives without manually switching agents.
affaan-m/ECC
ecc-council
Has your agent convene a four-voice council for difficult decisions. It's useful when there are multiple good options and debate is needed before choosing.
affaan-m/ECC