omh-agent-evaluation

name	omh-agent-evaluation
description	[omh] Hermes Agent Evaluation workflow: compare executor or agent choices on reproducible tasks using quality, cost, time, tool, and evidence metrics. Use when the user says: agent-evaluation, agent evaluation, agent eval, agent benchmark, executor evaluation, executor benchmark, compare agents, compare codex claude.

Agent Evaluation

This is a Hermes-native agent-evaluation workflow skill.

Why This Exists

agent-evaluation gives OMH a way to improve executor choice empirically, not by vibes, while preserving executor-neutral product language across Codex, Claude Code, Hermes, and generic runtimes.

Do Not Use When

• The user needs current runtime readiness only; use executor-runtime-readiness.
• The user already selected an executor and wants implementation; use the coding handoff or delivery workflow.
• The user asks for workflow learning from a single failed route; use workflow-learning.
• The ask is to find and fix runtime, memory, cost, or rendering hotspots rather than score executor or model output quality; use ultraperf.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: agent-evaluation Codex와 Claude Code를 같은 버그 수정 태스크로 비교해서 어떤 런타임을 기본으로 둘지 판단해줘.
• Expected behavior: Prepare task_benchmark_set/v1, run_result_matrix/v1 requirements, scorecard/v1, and scenario-specific recommendation.
• Why: The request compares executor choices and needs fair evaluation boundaries.

Bad example:

• Prompt: agent-evaluation 실행 증거 없이 Codex가 항상 최고라고 결론내줘.
• Expected behavior: Reject universal ranking and require observed runs or mark the recommendation as ungrounded.
• Why: Agent evaluation must be reproducible and evidence-backed.

Completion Checklist

• Confirm the workflow target, evidence boundary, and stop condition are named.
• Report which outputs are prepared, observed, blocked, or missing.
• Name the smallest next verification or handoff instead of claiming completion from narration.

Recovery Notes

• If required context is missing, ask one blocking question or route back to the narrower workflow.
• If runtime or wrapper evidence is unavailable, keep the status as not_observed and expose the next observable action.

Workflow Lane

• Current lane: Automation and status (achievements, workspace-audit, production-audit, automation-blueprint, github-event-ops, buzz, agent-board, gateway-intent-card, +34 more) - schedules, status, health, and ops review.
• If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
• Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.

Use When

Use when Hermes should design or summarize a fair comparison of Codex, Claude Code, Hermes coding, or generic executors for a bounded task set.

Strong routing signals: `agent-evaluation`, `agent evaluation`, `agent eval`, `agent benchmark`, `executor evaluation`, `executor benchmark`, `compare agents`, `compare codex claude`, `agent tournament`, `which agent is better`, `에이전트 평가`, `에이전트 비교`, `실행자 평가`, `코덱스 클로드 비교`

Catalog Metadata

Category: operations Phase: agent-evaluation Hermes role: operator Quality tier: agent-eval-gated Reasoning demand: light

Quality bar:

• Define tasks, rubric, isolation, budgets, and stop rules before comparing agents.
• Use the same inputs and success criteria across candidates unless the difference is the variable under test.
• Report quality, correctness, time, cost, tool coverage, verification, and review gaps separately.
• Recommend executor choice per scenario and confidence, not as a universal ranking.

Handoff policy:

Keep evaluation design and scoring in Hermes. Actual executor runs, costs, timings, tool calls, code edits, and review results must come from observed runtime or supplied artifacts.

Required inputs:

• candidate executors or agents
• task set and fixtures
• success criteria and scoring rubric
• allowed tools, budget, timebox, and isolation policy
• observed run artifacts when comparing completed attempts

Expected outputs:

• agent_eval_plan/v1
• task_benchmark_set/v1
• run_result_matrix/v1 when observed
• scorecard/v1
• selection_recommendation/v1
• not-evidence boundary

Artifact expectations:

• task_benchmark_set/v1 with reproducible tasks, fixtures, budgets, allowed tools, and acceptance criteria
• run_result_matrix/v1 with quality, correctness, time, cost, context, tool, verification, and review evidence when observed
• selection_recommendation/v1 with confidence, caveats, and winner-by-scenario rather than global mythology

Safety rules:

• Do not claim an executor is better from anecdotes, brand names, or unobserved runs.
• Do not send secrets, credentials, private data, or production tasks into evaluation without explicit authority.
• Keep benchmark design, observed run evidence, scoring, and executor selection separate.

Runtime Evidence

Preferred harness for this skill: agent-evaluation.

omh runtime record --skill agent-evaluation --harness agent-evaluation --status started

Record observed delegation results; otherwise return not_available or not_observed. Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.

• Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes. Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.

Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.

Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.