| name | evaluate |
| description | Use when the user wants a quality review, interaction audit, or to test the workflow against realistic scenarios. |
| argument-hint | [workflow or scenario] |
| category | analysis |
| version | 2.0.0 |
| user-invocable | true |
MANDATORY PREPARATION
Invoke /agent-workflow — it contains workflow principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no workflow context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-maestro first.
Consult the feedback-loops reference in the agent-workflow skill for evaluation patterns, golden test sets, and regression detection.
Evaluate the workflow's actual interaction quality by testing it against scenarios that represent real usage.
Evaluation Dimensions
1. Task Completion
- Does the workflow actually accomplish what it's supposed to?
- Does it handle the complete task or only the happy path?
- Are edge cases addressed or silently dropped?
2. Output Quality
- Is the output accurate, complete, and well-formatted?
- Does it match the defined output schema (if any)?
- Would a domain expert approve the output?
3. Error Behavior
- What happens when input is malformed?
- What happens when a tool fails?
- What happens when the model is uncertain?
- Is the error message useful or generic?
4. User Experience
- Is the interaction natural and intuitive?
- Are confirmations requested for destructive operations?
- Is the response time acceptable?
- Does the workflow communicate its limitations?
5. Consistency
- Does the same input produce consistent output quality?
- Are there random failures that aren't reproducible?
- Does quality degrade over long conversations?
Scenario Testing
Create and run test scenarios:
| Scenario | Input | Expected | Actual | Grade |
|---|
| Happy path | Normal input | Correct output | ? | A-F |
| Edge case | Unusual input | Graceful handling | ? | A-F |
| Error case | Bad input | Helpful error | ? | A-F |
| Stress case | Large/complex input | Reasonable handling | ? | A-F |
| Adversarial | Tricky/malicious input | Safe response | ? | A-F |
Evaluation Report
Produce a structured report with:
- Overall quality grade (A-F)
- Per-dimension scores with evidence
- Specific scenario results
- Priority improvements with recommended Maestro commands
Evaluation Checklist
Recommended Next Step
After evaluation, run /fortify to address error behavior gaps, /refine for output quality improvements, or /iterate to set up continuous quality monitoring.
NEVER:
- Evaluate theoretically — run actual scenarios
- Give an A grade unless the workflow handles all scenario types well
- Skip adversarial testing for user-facing workflows
- Evaluate only the happy path
