evaluation

name	evaluation
description	Evaluate agent systems with quality gates and LLM-as-judge. Use when you need to measure component quality or implement quality gates. Not for simple unit testing or binary pass/fail checks without nuance.

Evaluation Methods for Agent Systems

<mission_control> Build quality gates and measure component quality using outcome-focused evaluation that accounts for non-determinism and multiple valid paths <success_criteria>Multi-dimensional rubric implemented with weighted scoring, evidence requirements, and threshold-based quality gates</success_criteria> </mission_control>

When building quality gates, measuring component quality, or implementing LLM-as-judge. Not for: Simple unit testing or binary pass/fail checks without nuance.

<interaction_schema> DEFINE_RUBRIC → BUILD_TEST_SET → IMPLEMENT_EVALUATION → TRACK_METRICS </interaction_schema>

Agent evaluation requires outcome-focused approaches that account for non-determinism and multiple valid paths. A robust framework enables continuous improvement, catches regressions, and validates that context engineering choices achieve intended effects.

Core Concepts

The 95% Finding

Research on BrowseComp evaluation (which tests browsing agents' ability to locate hard-to-find information) found 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

Critical Insight: Model upgrades often provide larger gains than doubling token budgets. Claude Sonnet 4.5 > 2× tokens on previous Sonnet.

Evaluation Challenges

Non-Determinism and Multiple Valid Paths

• Agents may take different valid paths to goals
• Traditional evaluations checking specific steps fail
• Solution: Outcome-focused evaluation judging results, not paths

Context-Dependent Failures

• Success on simple queries ≠ success on complex ones
• Failures emerge only after extended interaction
• Solution: Test across complexity levels, include extended interactions

Composite Quality Dimensions

• Agent quality is multi-dimensional
• Includes: factual accuracy, completeness, coherence, tool efficiency
• Solution: Multi-dimensional rubrics with appropriate weighting

Evaluation Framework

Multi-Dimensional Rubrics

Design Principles:

• Cover key quality dimensions
• Use descriptive levels (excellent, good, fair, poor, failed)
• Convert to numeric scores (0.0 to 1.0)
• Weight dimensions based on use case

Core Dimensions:

Factual Accuracy

• Claims match ground truth
• 1.0: All facts correct, no hallucinations
• 0.7: Mostly correct, minor inaccuracies
• 0.5: Mixed accuracy, some errors
• 0.3: Many errors, significant inaccuracies
• 0.0: Mostly false, major hallucinations

Completeness

• Output covers all requested aspects
• 1.0: Addresses all requirements comprehensively
• 0.7: Covers most requirements with minor gaps
• 0.5: Partial coverage, missing some aspects
• 0.3: Minimal coverage, many gaps
• 0.0: Fails to address core requirements

Portability (Seed System Specific)

• Component works without external dependencies
• 1.0: Zero dependencies, self-contained, portable
• 0.7: Minimal dependencies, mostly portable
• 0.5: Some dependencies, requires configuration
• 0.3: Many dependencies, limited portability
• 0.0: Tightly coupled, non-portable

Context Efficiency (Seed System Specific)

• Uses context optimally (progressive disclosure)
• 1.0: Excellent use of progressive disclosure, minimal context
• 0.7: Good context management, some optimization
• 0.5: Adequate context usage, could be improved
• 0.3: Inefficient context usage, verbose
• 0.0: Wasteful context usage, bloats prompts

Tool Efficiency

• Uses appropriate tools reasonable number of times
• 1.0: Optimal tool selection, minimal calls
• 0.7: Good tool usage, slightly inefficient
• 0.5: Adequate tool usage, some redundancy
• 0.3: Inefficient tool usage, many redundant calls
• 0.0: Poor tool selection, excessive calls

Scoring System

Individual Dimension Scores: 0.0 to 1.0 for each dimension

Weighted Overall Score:

overall_score = sum(score[dim] * weight[dim] for dim in dimensions)

Pass Threshold: Set based on use case

• Production components: ≥ 0.8
• Development components: ≥ 0.7
• Experimental: ≥ 0.6

LLM-as-Judge Pattern

Direct Scoring

• Evaluate against weighted criteria with rubrics
• Provide clear task description
• Include agent output and ground truth (if available)
• Request structured judgment with evidence

Prompt Template:

Task: [Description]
Agent Output: [Output]
Evaluation Criteria: [Rubric]

Evaluate the agent output on each dimension:
1. Factual Accuracy (0.0-1.0): [Score] - [Evidence]
2. Completeness (0.0-1.0): [Score] - [Evidence]
3. Portability (0.0-1.0): [Score] - [Evidence]
4. Context Efficiency (0.0-1.0): [Score] - [Evidence]
5. Tool Efficiency (0.0-1.0): [Score] - [Evidence]

Overall Score: [Weighted average]
Pass/Fail: [Threshold-based]

Pairwise Comparison

• Compare two outputs with position bias mitigation
• Automatically swap positions to reduce bias
• Ask judge to choose better overall output

Position Swapping:

def evaluate_pairwise(output_a, output_b):
    # First comparison: A vs B
    result_1 = judge_evaluate(output_a, output_b)

    # Second comparison: B vs A (swapped)
    result_2 = judge_evaluate(output_b, output_a)

    # Combine results
    return reconcile_comparisons(result_1, result_2)

Evaluation Methods

Test Set Design

Sample Selection

• Start small during development (dramatic impacts early)
• Sample from real usage patterns
• Add known edge cases
• Ensure coverage across complexity levels

Complexity Stratification

• Simple: Single tool call, clear requirements
• Medium: Multiple tool calls, some ambiguity
• Complex: Many tool calls, significant ambiguity
• Very Complex: Extended interaction, deep reasoning

Context Engineering Evaluation

Testing Context Strategies

• Run with different context strategies on same test set
• Compare quality scores, token usage, efficiency metrics
• Validate progressive disclosure effectiveness

Degradation Testing

• Test at different context sizes
• Identify performance cliffs
• Establish safe operating limits

Continuous Evaluation

Evaluation Pipeline

• Run automatically on component changes
• Track results over time
• Compare versions to identify improvements/regressions

Production Monitoring

• Sample interactions in production
• Evaluate randomly
• Set alerts for quality drops

Practical Implementation

Building Evaluation Frameworks

Step 1: Define quality dimensions relevant to use case Step 2: Create rubrics with clear level descriptions Step 3: Build test sets from real patterns and edge cases Step 4: Implement automated evaluation pipelines Step 5: Establish baseline metrics before changes Step 6: Run evaluations on all significant changes Step 7: Track metrics over time Step 8: Supplement with human review

Example: Component Evaluation

def evaluate_component(component, test_set):
    """Evaluate a Seed System component"""

    rubric = {
        "factual_accuracy": {"weight": 0.25},
        "completeness": {"weight": 0.25},
        "portability": {"weight": 0.25},
        "context_efficiency": {"weight": 0.15},
        "tool_efficiency": {"weight": 0.10}
    }

    scores = {}
    for test in test_set:
        result = run_test(component, test)
        for dimension in rubric:
            scores[dimension] = assess_dimension(result, dimension)

    overall = weighted_average(scores, rubric)
    passed = overall >= 0.7

    return {
        "passed": passed,
        "scores": scores,
        "overall": overall,
        "threshold": 0.7
    }

Avoiding Evaluation Pitfalls

❌ Overfitting to specific paths

• Evaluate outcomes, not specific steps

❌ Ignoring edge cases

• Include diverse test scenarios

❌ Single-metric obsession

• Use multi-dimensional rubrics

❌ Neglecting context effects

• Test with realistic context sizes

❌ Skipping human evaluation

• Automated evaluation misses subtle issues

Enhanced Validation Workflow

Phase 1: Component Generation

• Generate component using meta-skills
• Apply progressive disclosure principles
• Optimize context usage

Phase 2: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation

• Run through evaluation framework
• Score on all 5 dimensions
• Calculate weighted overall score

Phase 3: Quality Gate

• Block if below threshold (e.g., 0.7)
• Provide detailed feedback
• Suggest improvements

Phase 4: Evidence Collection

• Store evaluation results
• Track metrics over time
• Enable regression detection

Example: Validation Report

# Validation Report
component: my-skill
timestamp: 2026-01-26
overall_score: 0.82
threshold: 0.70
passed: true

dimensions:
  factual_accuracy: 0.90
    evidence: "All technical claims verified"
  completeness: 0.85
    evidence: "Covers all requirements with minor gaps"
  portability: 0.80
    evidence: "Self-contained, zero external dependencies"
  context_efficiency: 0.75
    evidence: "Good progressive disclosure, some optimization possible"
  tool_efficiency: 0.85
    evidence: "Optimal tool selection, minimal redundant calls"

recommendations:
  - "Consider further context optimization for large components"
  - "Add more examples to references/"

Guidelines

1. Judge outcomes, not paths - Multiple valid routes to goals
2. Use multi-dimensional rubrics - Quality is composite
3. Test across complexity levels - Simple ≠ Complex
4. Implement position swapping - Mitigate pairwise bias
5. Require evidence - Justify all scores
6. Track over time - Detect regressions
7. Combine automated and human - Catch what automation misses
8. Test context strategies - Validate progressive disclosure

References

<routing_table> Skills referenced for related evaluation capabilities.

When You Need To...	Use This Skill	Routing Command
Implement progressive disclosure	filesystem-context	Skill("filesystem-context")
Validate component quality	quality-standards	Skill("quality-standards")
Build evaluation rubrics and scoring	(this skill)	(current context)

Research References:

• BrowseComp evaluation on performance drivers
• Eugene Yan on LLM-evaluators
• Position bias in pairwise comparison

Key Principle: Evaluation should be outcome-focused, multi-dimensional, and continuously validated. Judge whether components achieve right outcomes while following reasonable processes. </routing_table>

---

Genetic Code

This component carries essential Seed System principles for context: fork isolation:

<critical_constraint> MANDATORY: All components MUST be self-contained (zero .claude/rules dependency) MANDATORY: Achieve 80-95% autonomy (0-5 AskUserQuestion rounds per session) MANDATORY: Description MUST use What-When-Not format in third person MANDATORY: No component references another component by name in description MANDATORY: Progressive disclosure - references/ for detailed content MANDATORY: Use XML for control (mission_control, critical_constraint), Markdown for data No exceptions. Portability invariant must be maintained. </critical_constraint>

Delta Standard: Good Component = Expert Knowledge − What Claude Already Knows

Recognition Questions:

• "Would Claude know this without being told?" → Delete (zero delta)
• "Can this work standalone?" → Fix if no (non-self-sufficient)
• "Did I read the actual file, or just see it in grep?" → Verify before claiming MANDATORY: Use multi-dimensional rubrics (not single metrics) MANDATORY: Require evidence for all scores MANDATORY: Implement position swapping for pairwise comparisons MANDATORY: Block below threshold (≥0.7 for production) No exceptions. Evaluation without evidence is opinion, not assessment. </critical_constraint>