sc-evaluate

name	sc-evaluate
description	LLM pipeline evaluation with oracle judge scoring. Runs prompts against gold standard datasets, evaluates output quality via LLM-as-judge, and generates scored reports with improvement recommendations.

LLM Evaluation Skill

Run LLM pipeline evaluation against gold standard datasets using oracle LLM-as-judge scoring. Measures output quality across weighted dimensions, identifies weak steps, and suggests prompt improvements.

Quick Start

# Full evaluation (all test cases, all steps)
/sc:evaluate

# Quick spot check
/sc:evaluate --cases=case_1,case_2 --steps=1,2,3

# Re-evaluate existing results without re-running pipeline
/sc:evaluate --skip-pipeline

# Generate outputs only (no evaluation)
/sc:evaluate --skip-eval

# Specify judge model
/sc:evaluate --judge-model=gpt-4o

# Dry run to preview plan
/sc:evaluate --dry-run

Behavioral Flow

1. Discover - Find evaluation script, gold standards, and prompt files
2. Configure - Parse scope (cases, steps, model overrides)
3. Execute - Run pipeline on gold standard inputs
4. Evaluate - Score outputs against gold standards via LLM-as-judge
5. Analyze - Identify weak steps, dimension breakdowns, patterns
6. Recommend - Suggest specific prompt improvements for low-scoring steps
7. Report - Generate JSON + Markdown evaluation reports

Flags

Flag	Type	Default	Description
--cases	string	all	Comma-separated test case IDs to evaluate
--steps	string	all	Comma-separated step numbers to evaluate
--model	string	env default	Override pipeline model
--judge-model	string	env default	Override judge/oracle model
--skip-pipeline	bool	false	Skip pipeline execution, evaluate existing results
--skip-eval	bool	false	Run pipeline only, skip evaluation
--dry-run	bool	false	Preview execution plan without API calls
--output	string	eval_runs/YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS/	Output directory
--concurrency	int	5	Parallel judge calls
--threshold	int	70	Score threshold for "needs improvement"

Phase 1: Discover Project Structure

Locate evaluation components:

Component	Common Locations	Purpose
Evaluation script	scripts/run_eval.py, eval/run.py	Orchestrates pipeline + scoring
Gold standards	gold_standards/, test_data/, fixtures/	Expected outputs
Prompts	prompts/, templates/	Pipeline prompt templates
Rubrics	eval/rubrics.py, config/rubrics.yaml	Scoring dimensions and weights

If no standard structure found, ask the user to specify paths.

Phase 2: Configure Scope

Parse arguments to determine:

• Which test cases to run (default: all discovered)
• Which pipeline steps to evaluate (default: all)
• Model overrides for pipeline and judge
• Output directory (default: timestamped)

Create output directory:

OUTPUT_DIR="${output:-eval_runs/$(date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S)}"
mkdir -p "$OUTPUT_DIR"

Phase 3: Execute Pipeline

Run the pipeline on gold standard inputs:

python <eval_script> \
  --output "$OUTPUT_DIR" \
  --verbose \
  [--cases CASES] \
  [--steps STEPS] \
  [--model MODEL] \
  [--skip-pipeline] \
  [--skip-eval]

API call estimation:

• Pipeline: steps x cases API calls
• Evaluation: scored_dimensions x cases judge calls

For quick validation, suggest running on 1-2 cases with 2-3 steps first.

Phase 4: Evaluate with LLM-as-Judge

For each step output, compare against gold standard using oracle LLM-as-judge:

Evaluation dimensions (customizable per project):

Dimension	What It Measures
Content Agreement	Do outputs cover the same key points?
Structure Match	Is the organization/format similar?
Detail Accuracy	Are specific claims and data correct?
Completeness	Are all expected elements present?

Each dimension has a weight (0.0-1.0) summing to 1.0 per step.

Phase 5: Analyze Results

Read and analyze evaluation report:

1. Overall similarity score across all cases and steps
2. Per-step scores — highlight any below threshold (default: 70/100)
3. Per-case scores — identify consistently weak test cases
4. Dimension breakdowns for weak steps

Score interpretation:

Score Range	Assessment	Action
85-100	Excellent	No changes needed
70-84	Good	Minor tuning possible
60-69	Needs improvement	Prompt revision recommended
Below 60	Poor	Prompt likely needs rewrite

Phase 6: Recommend Improvements

For each step scoring below threshold:

1. Read the current prompt template
2. Read the gold standard output (expected)
3. Read the pipeline output (actual)
4. Compare and identify gaps:
   • Missing instructions that gold standard captures
   • Overly broad instructions causing divergent output
   • Format/structure differences
   • Specificity gaps

Present actionable suggestions:

### Step N: <step_name> (Score: XX/100)

**Weakest Dimension**: <dimension> (XX/100)

**Gap Analysis**:
- Gold standard includes <X> but prompt doesn't instruct it
- Output format diverges: gold uses <format>, output uses <other>

**Suggested Prompt Changes**:
1. Add instruction: "<specific instruction>"
2. Clarify format: "<format guidance>"
3. Add example: "<example output snippet>"

Output Structure

eval_runs/YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS/
  results/                    # Pipeline outputs
    case_1/
      step_01_<name>.md
      step_02_<name>.md
      ...
    case_2/
      ...
  evaluation/                 # Judge scores
    evaluation_report.json
    evaluation_report.md
    per_step_scores.csv
    per_case_scores.csv

MCP Integration

PAL MCP (Optional)

Tool	When	Purpose
mcp__pal__thinkdeep	Low-scoring steps	Deep analysis of why outputs diverge
mcp__pal__consensus	Prompt revision	Multi-model validation of proposed changes
mcp__pal__codereview	Eval script	Review evaluation pipeline code

Rube MCP (Optional)

Tool	When	Purpose
mcp__rube__RUBE_REMOTE_WORKBENCH	Large eval runs	Process results in Python sandbox
mcp__rube__RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL	Notifications	Report results to Slack/email

Error Handling

Scenario	Action
No eval script found	Ask user for script path
No gold standards found	Ask user for gold standard directory
API rate limit	Reduce concurrency, add delays
Pipeline step fails	Log error, continue with remaining steps
Judge returns invalid score	Retry once, then flag for manual review
Output directory exists	Append timestamp suffix

Guardrails

• Always pass --verbose for progress visibility
• Warn about API call counts before full runs
• Suggest quick validation on subset before full evaluation
• Preserve all intermediate outputs for debugging
• Never modify gold standard files

Tool Coordination

• Bash - Run evaluation scripts
• Read - Inspect prompts, gold standards, outputs, reports
• Write - Generate reports
• Grep - Search for patterns in outputs
• PAL MCP - Deep analysis of score gaps