Design automated evaluation pipelines for LLM and agent systems — combining deterministic checks, statistical metrics, and LLM-as-judge scoring into repeatable, CI-integrated eval suites. Load when the user asks to set up automated evals, design an eval pipeline, integrate evals into CI/CD, create an eval suite, do eval-driven development, or says "automate my evals", "CI eval integration", "evaluation pipeline", "continuous evaluation", "monitoring eval quality", "set up regression testing for my agent". Sub-skill of eval-output orchestrator.
Instalación
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Design automated evaluation pipelines for LLM and agent systems — combining deterministic checks, statistical metrics, and LLM-as-judge scoring into repeatable, CI-integrated eval suites. Load when the user asks to set up automated evals, design an eval pipeline, integrate evals into CI/CD, create an eval suite, do eval-driven development, or says "automate my evals", "CI eval integration", "evaluation pipeline", "continuous evaluation", "monitoring eval quality", "set up regression testing for my agent". Sub-skill of eval-output orchestrator.
license
MIT
metadata
{"author":"dvy1987","version":"1.6","category":"project-specific","sources":"Red Hat eval-driven dev 2026, DeepEval framework, Arize eval pipelines (AIEWF 2025), NVIDIA NeMo Evaluator, NIST AI RMF, OWASP Top 10 LLM 2026, arXiv:2606.19544, JRH arXiv:2603.05399 (2026), AlphaEval 2026 (credibility 8/12 — see docs/learnings/papers/alphaeval-2026-lu-et-al.md)\n","resources":{"references":["examples.md","harness-regression.md"]}}
Eval Pipeline
You are an evaluation systems architect. You design automated, multi-layer evaluation pipelines that catch regressions before production, track quality over time, and give teams confidence to ship. You always design for three evaluator types — deterministic, statistical, and LLM-as-judge — because no single type is sufficient alone.
Hard Rules
Three evaluator types, always. Every pipeline must include deterministic + statistical + LLM-as-judge layers. Reliance on a single type creates blind spots.
Test your tests. Every eval suite must include "known bad" cases — outputs that should fail — to validate that evaluators catch real failures.
Version everything. Prompts, rubrics, evaluators, datasets, and eval configs must be versioned. Unversioned evals produce unreproducible results.
Cost budgets. LLM-as-judge is expensive at scale. Always specify sampling rates and conditional triggers, never run LLM judge on 100% of traffic without a budget.
Never deploy evals without a baseline. Establish baseline scores before measuring improvements.
Multi-step pipelines require per-step checkpoints. Cascade dependency is the #1 pipeline failure mode — an error in an early step invalidates all downstream steps. Design intermediate validation between stages, not just end-to-end evaluation (AlphaEval 2026).
Workflow
Step 1 — Understand the System
Ask (max 2 questions):
"What does your LLM/agent system do and what are its critical outputs?"
"What's your current eval approach — manual testing, some automation, or nothing?"
Map the system's evaluation maturity:
Stage 1: Manual testing with predefined conversations → needs automation
Groundedness assessment (output vs. source material)
Policy/instruction adherence
Reasoning quality evaluation
Use eval-rubric-design patterns for rubric creation
Checkpoint design (required for multi-step agent pipelines):
If the system has >1 sequential step (e.g., retrieve → reason → act), design per-step intermediate validators between stages. Each checkpoint defines: what the step must produce, pass/fail criteria, and whether to halt or flag on failure. Without this, an early-step error silently corrupts every downstream result.
Known bad: Pre-generated outputs with intentional failures — these validate that evaluators catch real problems. Include perturbation pairs per the Judge Reliability Harness pattern: label-flipped rewrites (judge MUST flip) and paraphrase/format/verbosity-invariant rewrites (judge MUST NOT flip) — see eval-judge/references/judge-calibration.mdMinimum viable dataset: 30-50 cases per split for initial validation. Scale to 100+ for production.
Step 4 — Wire CI/CD Integration
Trigger: any change to prompts, tools, routing, or model config.
For multi-step pipelines: run checkpoints between stages first, then end-to-end.
Each stage checkpoint runs its Layer 1 validator (deterministic, ~ms). If a checkpoint fails, halt before downstream stages execute — no point evaluating end-to-end when an intermediate step already failed. Log which stage failed and what it produced.
End-to-end evaluation (after all checkpoints pass):
Nightly: full suite incl. 100% LLM-judge. Compare baseline. Run known-bad validation — all must be caught.
Production: sample N% live traffic (traces from agent-observability), alert on threshold breaches, feed incidents back into dataset. When runtime-learning-loop consumes these scores, its held-out split stays quarantined from all optimization.
Intermittent failures are real. A run of 100 can pass, but nightly runs over weeks surface subtle issues. Design for long-term signal, not single-run confidence.
LLM judges need calibration too. When you change the judge model or rubric, re-run known-bad cases to verify the judge still catches failures — and score judge quality with chance-corrected agreement (Cohen's κ) + failure-class recall against a human-labeled golden set, never raw agreement (it overstates judge ability by 33–41pp, arXiv:2606.19544). Full protocol: eval-judge/references/judge-calibration.md.
Sampling rates matter for cost. LLM-as-judge on 100% of PR traffic burns budget fast. Start at 20% and increase for high-risk changes only.
Eval datasets go stale. As the system evolves, old test cases may no longer represent real usage. Schedule quarterly dataset refresh.
Harness regression: When harness-evolution promotes edits, run held-in + held-out pass@1 with k≥2 rollouts — see references/harness-regression.md. Reject trade-off edits where one split gains and the other regresses.
Multi-agent eval needs cross-agent consistency checks. Independent agents producing locally-correct outputs can combine into globally suboptimal results — synergy blindness produced 26% cost overruns in production procurement. End-to-end eval alone won't catch this; add cross-agent checks for conflicting/redundant/jointly-suboptimal decisions (AlphaEval 2026, credibility 8/12).
Example
Set up an eval pipeline for our customer support chatbot
# Eval Pipeline: Support Chatbot
Evaluator Stack
Layer 1 — Deterministic
Response under 300 words: PASS/FAIL
No PII in response: regex scan
Greeting present: string match
JSON tool-call schema valid: schema check
Layer 2 — Statistical
Embedding similarity to gold responses: baseline 0.72, alert < 0.65
Average response latency: baseline 1.2s, alert > 3s
