eval

name	eval
description	Evaluate code or implementation against specific criteria
user-invocable	true

/eval

Evaluate the current implementation against defined criteria, standards, or a rubric. Produces a structured assessment with scores.

Arguments

• $ARGUMENTS — Criteria to evaluate against, or "default" for standard quality gate

Default Criteria

Category	Weight	Checks
Correctness	30%	Tests pass, edge cases handled, no regressions
Security	20%	OWASP checks, input validation, secrets management
Performance	15%	No N+1 queries, efficient algorithms, caching
Maintainability	15%	Readability, modularity, naming clarity
Testing	10%	Coverage ≥80%, edge cases, test quality
Documentation	10%	API docs current, README accurate, comments useful

Process

1. Gather Evidence

For each category, collect evidence:

• Run tests and capture results
• Run linters and type checkers
• Review code changes
• Check documentation accuracy

2. Score Each Category

Rate each category: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)

3. Generate Report

## Evaluation Report

### Overall Score: X.X / 5.0

| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|----------|-------|--------|----------|
| Correctness | 4/5 | 30% | 1.20 |
| Security | 3/5 | 20% | 0.60 |
| Performance | 4/5 | 15% | 0.60 |
| Maintainability | 5/5 | 15% | 0.75 |
| Testing | 3/5 | 10% | 0.30 |
| Documentation | 4/5 | 10% | 0.40 |
| **Total** | | | **3.85** |

### Detailed Findings
[Per-category evidence and recommendations]

### Verdict
**SHIP IT** (≥4.0) | **IMPROVE** (3.0-3.9) | **REWORK** (<3.0)

Custom Criteria

When $ARGUMENTS specifies custom criteria, use those instead of defaults. Format each criterion as: name: description (weight%).