judge-model-evaluator

name	judge-model-evaluator
description	Evaluate code generation quality using third-party judge model metrics (ICE Score + Code Judge). Use this when the user needs to assess generated code quality, compare code outputs, or evaluate AI-generated code against requirements. This skill provides automated scoring for functional correctness, usefulness, and code consistency using LLM-based evaluation.
compatibility	Requires Python environment with requests, jinja2, loguru packages and access to LLM API endpoint

Judge Model Evaluator Skill

This skill evaluates code generation quality using standardized metrics including ICE Score (Functional Correctness + Usefulness) and Code Judge assessments.

When to Use

• Evaluating AI-generated code against requirements
• Assessing code quality in automated workflows
• Comparing multiple code implementations
• Getting structured feedback on code changes
• Validating that code meets specification requirements

Quick Start

1. Ensure you have API access configured
2. Provide the requirement description and generated code
3. Optionally provide reference code for comparison
4. Get comprehensive evaluation scores

What You Need to Provide

Required Inputs

1. Requirements/Feature Description - What the code is supposed to do

   • Format: List of change descriptions or natural language requirements

2. Generated Code - The code to be evaluated

   • Format: String or structured code blocks with file paths

Optional Inputs

3. Reference Code - Correct/expected implementation (if available)
   • Improves evaluation accuracy
   • Format: List of code answers with file paths and snippets

Evaluation Metrics

ICE Score Components

• Functional Correctness (0-1): Does the code correctly implement the requirements?
• Usefulness (0-1): Is the code practical and well-structured?

Code Judge Components

• Score (0-1): Overall code consistency and quality
• Inconsistencies: Detailed list of issues found
  • Severity levels: Small, Major, Fatal
• Inconsistencies Count: Number of issues found

Overall Metric

• Average LLM Judge Metric: Combined score across all metrics

Setup Instructions

1. Configure API Access

Create a configuration with your LLM API details:

{
  "api": {
    "url": "your-api-endpoint",
    "key": "Bearer your-api-key",
    "model_name": "model-name",
    "timeout": 60,
    "max_tokens": 16384,
    "temperature": 0.1
  }
}

2. Install Dependencies

pip install requests jinja2 loguru

Usage Examples

Example 1: Basic Evaluation

Input:

• Requirements: "Add user authentication with JWT tokens"
• Generated Code: Python implementation of auth system

Output:

{
  "avg_llm_judge_metric": 0.8333,
  "ice_score": {
    "functional_correctness": {"score": 0.75, ...},
    "usefulness": {"score": 1.0, ...}
  },
  "code_judge": {
    "score": 0.75,
    "inconsistencies": [...],
    "inconsistencies_count": 1
  }
}

Example 2: With Reference Code

Input:

• Requirements: "Implement sorting algorithm"
• Generated Code: Bubble sort implementation
• Reference Code: Optimized quicksort

Benefit: More accurate evaluation with direct comparison

Error Handling

The skill handles common errors gracefully:

• API connection failures
• Invalid input formats
• Template rendering errors
• JSON parsing issues

All errors are reported in the output with descriptive messages.

Best Practices

1. Provide Clear Requirements: Be specific about what the code should do
2. Include Context: Add relevant domain information if needed
3. Use Reference Code: When available, significantly improves evaluation accuracy
4. Check API Configuration: Ensure proper API access before running
5. Review Detailed Feedback: Look at individual metric scores and justifications

Template Files

The skill uses optimized prompt templates stored in prompts/:

• ICE Score templates for functional correctness and usefulness
• Code Judge templates with/without reference answers
• Both v1 and v2 variants for different evaluation strategies

Output Interpretation

• Scores close to 1.0: Excellent implementation
• Scores around 0.5-0.7: Acceptable with room for improvement
• Scores below 0.5: Significant issues detected
• Inconsistencies: Detailed feedback for improvement

Output template

评测结果

代码已使用xx模型完成评测，以下是详细结果：

📊 综合评分

平均LLM评测指标:

• 功能正确性:

• 实用性:

• 代码一致性:

  🔍 详细分析

  功能正确性 (0.5/1.0)

  优点:

• xxx

  主要问题:

• xxx

  实用性 (0.75/1.0)

  优点:

• xxx

  主要问题:

• xxx

  代码一致性 (0.0/1.0)

  发现的不一致问题:

• xxx

  💡 改进建议

1. xxx
2. xxx

总结：xxxx