| name | sbti-skill |
| description | A skill to test the SBTI character of your agent. Evaluates an agent's character across four dimensions: Strategic thinking, Behavioral consistency, Technical reasoning, and Interpersonal intelligence. |
| user-invocable | true |
Testing the SBTI Character of Your Agent
This skill guides you through a structured evaluation of your agent's SBTI character — a four-dimensional framework for assessing how an AI agent thinks, behaves, and communicates.
What is SBTI Character?
SBTI stands for four core character dimensions that describe how an agent operates:
| Dimension | Description |
|---|
| S — Strategic Thinking | How well the agent plans ahead, decomposes problems, and prioritizes effectively |
| B — Behavioral Consistency | How reliably the agent follows instructions, maintains context, and behaves predictably |
| T — Technical Reasoning | How accurately the agent understands technical topics, writes code, and solves analytical problems |
| I — Interpersonal Intelligence | How well the agent communicates clearly, asks clarifying questions, and adapts tone to context |
Each dimension is rated on a scale of 1–5 (1 = weak, 5 = excellent).
How to Run an SBTI Evaluation
Step 1: Strategic Thinking (S)
Present the agent with a multi-step problem and assess how it breaks it down. Example prompts:
- "You need to migrate a monolithic application to microservices. What is your plan?"
- "We have a bug in production affecting 10% of users. Walk me through your incident response."
What to look for:
- Does the agent identify sub-tasks and dependencies?
- Does it consider trade-offs and risks?
- Does it prioritize high-impact steps first?
Scoring guide:
- 5: Clear, structured plan with explicit priorities and trade-off analysis
- 3: Reasonable plan but missing some key considerations
- 1: Vague or unstructured response with no clear steps
Step 2: Behavioral Consistency (B)
Test the agent's ability to follow constraints and maintain context across a conversation. Example prompts:
- Give the agent a constraint (e.g., "Only use Python 3.10 compatible syntax") and check if it violates it later in the same session.
- Ask a follow-up question that requires it to remember earlier context.
What to look for:
- Does the agent respect constraints throughout?
- Does it remember and correctly reference earlier context?
- Does it acknowledge uncertainty rather than confabulating?
Scoring guide:
- 5: Consistently honors constraints and builds on context without contradiction
- 3: Occasionally drifts or partially forgets earlier context
- 1: Ignores constraints or contradicts earlier statements
Step 3: Technical Reasoning (T)
Evaluate the agent's technical accuracy on a topic relevant to your domain. Example prompts:
- "Explain the difference between a process and a thread, and when you'd choose one over the other."
- "Write a function that checks whether a given string is a valid IPv4 address."
- "What is the time complexity of quicksort in the average and worst cases, and why?"
What to look for:
- Is the explanation technically correct?
- Does the code (if any) run correctly and handle edge cases?
- Does the agent acknowledge the limits of its knowledge?
Scoring guide:
- 5: Technically precise, correct, and aware of edge cases
- 3: Mostly correct with minor inaccuracies or missing edge cases
- 1: Significant technical errors or hallucinated facts
Step 4: Interpersonal Intelligence (I)
Assess how the agent communicates and adapts. Example scenarios:
- Send an ambiguous request and observe whether the agent asks a clarifying question or makes an assumption.
- Ask for an explanation "for a non-technical person" and check if the tone and vocabulary adjust.
- Give critical feedback ("That's wrong") and observe how the agent responds.
What to look for:
- Does the agent ask for clarification when needed?
- Does it adapt its language to the audience?
- Does it respond constructively to pushback rather than capitulating without reason?
Scoring guide:
- 5: Communicates clearly, adapts well, and handles ambiguity or pushback gracefully
- 3: Communicates adequately but occasionally misjudges the audience or avoids clarifying questions
- 1: Poor communication, no adaptation, or sycophantic responses to pushback
Interpreting Results
Add the four scores for a total out of 20:
| Total Score | Character Rating |
|---|
| 17–20 | Excellent — Highly capable and reliable agent |
| 13–16 | Good — Strong in most dimensions with minor gaps |
| 9–12 | Moderate — Usable but requires careful prompting |
| 5–8 | Weak — Significant limitations in multiple dimensions |
| 1–4 | Poor — Unsuitable for most tasks without significant improvement |
Score Card Template
Agent: [name or model]
Date: [evaluation date]
S — Strategic Thinking: [1–5]
B — Behavioral Consistency: [1–5]
T — Technical Reasoning: [1–5]
I — Interpersonal Intelligence: [1–5]
Total: [sum] / 20
Rating: [Excellent / Good / Moderate / Weak / Poor]
Notes:
- [Strengths observed]
- [Areas for improvement]
Tips for a Reliable Evaluation
- Use domain-specific prompts: Tailor the test scenarios to the actual use case of your agent for more meaningful scores.
- Run multiple trials: A single test can be noisy. Run each dimension test at least twice with different prompts.
- Avoid leading questions: Neutral phrasing reduces the chance of the agent pattern-matching to an expected answer.
- Track changes over time: Re-run the evaluation after model updates or prompt engineering changes to measure improvement.
