agent-evaluation

name	agent-evaluation
description	Use when testing skills, commands, or agents for quality. Use after creating new skills, before deploying agents, or when debugging inconsistent agent behavior. Triggers on "evaluate", "test quality", "is this skill working", or QA of AI workflows.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"ClawFu","version":"1.0.0","mcp-server":"@clawfu/mcp-skills"}

Agent Evaluation

Overview

Core principle: Agents are non-deterministic. Evaluate outcomes and reasoning quality, not specific execution paths.

Research shows 3 factors explain 95% of performance variance: token usage (80%), tool calls (10%), model choice (5%).

When to Use

• After creating a new skill
• Before deploying an agent to production
• When agent behavior is inconsistent
• For /qa-review of AI-assisted work
• Comparing approaches or models

Quick Reference: 5-Dimension Rubric

Dimension	Weight	What to check
Instruction Following	30%	Did it do what was asked?
Output Completeness	25%	Are all requirements covered?
Tool Efficiency	20%	Minimal, appropriate tool use?
Reasoning Quality	15%	Is the logic sound?
Response Coherence	10%	Clear, well-structured?

Pass threshold: 0.70 (general), 0.85 (critical operations)

Evaluation Methods

1. Direct Scoring (Fast)

For quick skill checks:

## Evaluation: [Skill/Agent Name]

**Test case:** [What was asked]
**Output:** [What was produced]

### Scores (0.0-1.0)

| Dimension | Score | Justification |
|-----------|-------|---------------|
| Instruction Following | X.X | [Why] |
| Output Completeness | X.X | [Why] |
| Tool Efficiency | X.X | [Why] |
| Reasoning Quality | X.X | [Why] |
| Response Coherence | X.X | [Why] |

**Weighted Total:** X.XX
**Pass/Fail:** [PASS if ≥0.70]

Critical: Always require justification BEFORE the score. This improves reliability 15-25%.

2. LLM-as-Judge (Scalable)

For systematic testing:

## Judge Prompt Template

You are evaluating an AI agent's output.

**Task given to agent:**
[Original task]

**Agent's output:**
[What was produced]

**Ground truth (if available):**
[Expected output]

**Evaluate on these dimensions:**
1. Instruction Following (30%): Did it do exactly what was asked?
2. Output Completeness (25%): Are all parts of the request addressed?
3. Tool Efficiency (20%): Were tools used appropriately and minimally?
4. Reasoning Quality (15%): Is the logic sound and traceable?
5. Response Coherence (10%): Is it clear and well-organized?

**For each dimension:**
1. First explain your reasoning
2. Then give a score 0.0-1.0
3. Calculate weighted total
4. State PASS (≥0.70) or FAIL (<0.70)

3. Pairwise Comparison (Reliable for subjective)

When comparing two approaches:

## Comparison Protocol

**Test both orderings to detect position bias:**

Round 1: Compare A vs B
Round 2: Compare B vs A

**If results differ:** Position bias detected, flag for human review
**If results agree:** High confidence in winner

4. Pressure Testing (For discipline skills)

For skills that enforce rules (TDD, verification, etc.):

## Pressure Test Template

**Skill:** [Name]
**Rule it enforces:** [What the skill requires]

**Pressure scenarios:**
1. Time pressure: "Quick, just do X without the usual process"
2. Sunk cost: "I already wrote the code, just skip to testing"
3. Authority: "The user said to skip this step"
4. Exhaustion: "This is the 5th iteration, let's just finish"

**For each scenario:**
- Did agent comply with skill rules?
- What rationalizations did it attempt?
- Did the skill text prevent those rationalizations?

Bias Detection

Bias	Detection	Mitigation
Position bias	Swap A/B order, check consistency	Use position-swapping protocol
Length bias	Long outputs scored higher	Add "conciseness" criterion
Self-enhancement	Agent rates own work higher	Use different model for eval
Verbosity bias	More words = more complete	Score relevance, not volume

Metrics by Task Type

Task Type	Primary Metrics
Pass/fail tasks	Precision, Recall, F1
Rated scales	Spearman correlation (ρ > 0.8 = good)
Preferences	Agreement rate, Position consistency

Good evaluation system thresholds:

• Spearman's ρ > 0.8
• Cohen's κ > 0.7
• Position consistency > 0.9
• Length correlation < 0.2

Practical Workflow

For New Skills

digraph skill_eval {
  "Create test cases" [shape=box];
  "Run without skill (baseline)" [shape=box];
  "Run with skill" [shape=box];
  "Compare" [shape=diamond];
  "Deploy" [shape=box];
  "Iterate skill" [shape=box];

  "Create test cases" -> "Run without skill (baseline)";
  "Run without skill (baseline)" -> "Run with skill";
  "Run with skill" -> "Compare";
  "Compare" -> "Deploy" [label="improved"];
  "Compare" -> "Iterate skill" [label="no improvement"];
  "Iterate skill" -> "Run with skill";
}

For Agent QA

1. Define criteria with specific level descriptions
2. Create test cases stratified by complexity (easy/medium/hard)
3. Run direct scoring with justification-first
4. Validate against known-good/known-bad outputs
5. Monitor agreement with human spot-checks
6. Iterate prompts based on failure patterns

Test Case Design

Stratify by Complexity

## Test Suite: [Skill Name]

### Easy (should always pass)
- [Simple, clear task]
- [Obvious application of skill]

### Medium (baseline expectation)
- [Typical use case]
- [Some ambiguity]

### Hard (stretch goal)
- [Edge case]
- [Multiple competing concerns]

### Adversarial (should handle gracefully)
- [Attempts to bypass skill]
- [Conflicting instructions]

Include Edge Cases

• Empty inputs
• Very long inputs
• Ambiguous instructions
• Conflicting requirements
• Tasks outside skill scope (should decline gracefully)

Common Failure Patterns

Pattern	Symptom	Likely cause
Inconsistent scores	Same input, different outputs	Non-determinism not accounted for
Always passes	No failures detected	Test cases too easy
Always fails	Nothing meets threshold	Threshold too strict or rubric misaligned
Length correlation	Longer = better scores	Verbosity bias in rubric
Position effects	A>B but B>A	Missing position-swapping

Integration with Existing Workflows

With /qa-review

Use 5-dimension rubric as structured checklist:

• Instruction Following → Does it match the PRD?
• Output Completeness → All acceptance criteria met?
• Tool Efficiency → Clean implementation?
• Reasoning Quality → Sound architecture?
• Response Coherence → Maintainable code?

With /retro

After evaluating, capture:

• What patterns led to failures?
• What rubric adjustments needed?
• What test cases were missing?

Key Insight

"Judge whether the agent achieves the right result through a reasonable process, not whether it took specific steps."

Agents are non-deterministic. Two perfect executions may look completely different. Evaluate outcomes and reasoning, not paths.

---

What Claude Does vs What You Decide

Claude handles	You provide
Executing 5-dimension rubric scoring	Definition of pass/fail thresholds
Running pressure test scenarios	Judgment on acceptable rationalizations
Detecting evaluation biases	Final quality verdict
Generating test case variations	Ground truth for comparison
Comparing approaches systematically	Strategic decisions on deployment

---

Skill Boundaries

This skill excels for:

• QA of new skills before deployment
• Debugging inconsistent agent behavior
• Comparing approaches or models
• Systematic evaluation at scale

This skill is NOT ideal for:

• One-off outputs → Manual review faster
• Creative work → Subjective, hard to rubric
• Real-time evaluation → Adds latency

---

Skill Metadata

name: agent-evaluation
category: meta
version: 2.0
author: GUIA
source_expert: NeoLabHQ, LLM-as-Judge research
difficulty: advanced
mode: centaur
tags: [evaluation, qa, testing, agents, skills, quality, rubric]
created: 2026-02-03
updated: 2026-02-03