Rigorously evaluate an Agent Skill end-to-end across ANY coding-agent CLI — verify its scripts emit the documented numbers (deterministic checks), test whether its description triggers on the right prompts, and measure whether an agent following the SKILL.md beats a no-skill baseline (with/without pass-rate delta, mean ± stddev, benchmarked). Use whenever you need to test, benchmark, validate, grade, or quantify a skill's quality, check if a skill "actually works," compare two skill versions, optimize a skill's triggering, or set up an eval suite — even if the user just says "is this skill any good," "does my skill work," or "benchmark this skill." Drives Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Antigravity (agy), Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Amp, opencode, or Grok in headless mode.
Instalação
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Rigorously evaluate an Agent Skill end-to-end across ANY coding-agent CLI — verify its scripts emit the documented numbers (deterministic checks), test whether its description triggers on the right prompts, and measure whether an agent following the SKILL.md beats a no-skill baseline (with/without pass-rate delta, mean ± stddev, benchmarked). Use whenever you need to test, benchmark, validate, grade, or quantify a skill's quality, check if a skill "actually works," compare two skill versions, optimize a skill's triggering, or set up an eval suite — even if the user just says "is this skill any good," "does my skill work," or "benchmark this skill." Drives Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Antigravity (agy), Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Amp, opencode, or Grok in headless mode.
license
Apache-2.0
compatibility
Python 3.10+. The deterministic layer needs no network or API key. The trigger and quality layers require one supported coding-agent CLI installed and authenticated (claude, codex, agy, cursor-agent, copilot, amp, opencode, grok).
metadata
{"author":"HeshamFS","version":"1.0.2","security_tier":"high","last_reviewed":"2026-06-23","eval_cases":4,"standards":["Agent Skills standard / evaluation spec (agentskills.io)","Anthropic open-source skill-creator reference (evaluation methodology and grader rubric)","von Neumann stability analysis (FTCS Fourier-number example used in the grading rubric)","Held-out / with-vs-without baseline (A/B delta) evaluation methodology","Per-CLI vendor headless specifications (claude -p, codex exec, cursor-agent, copilot, amp, opencode, grok)"]}
allowed-tools
Read, Bash, Write, Grep, Glob
Skill Evaluator
Test whether a skill is correct, discoverable, and valuable — not just whether
its unit tests pass. The harness is agent-agnostic: it drives whichever coding-agent
CLI the user uses, because Agent Skills are portable across all of them.
When to use which layer
Three layers, increasing cost and fidelity (full rationale in
references/methodology.md):
Layer
Question
Script
Needs a CLI?
1. Deterministic
Do the scripts emit the documented numbers?
run_script_checks.py
No
2. Trigger
Does the description activate on the right prompts?
Always run Layer 1 (it's free). Add Layers 2–3 when you can run a coding-agent CLI.
Step 0 — pick the agent CLI
Ask the user which coding agent they use, then map it to an adapter id. Supported:
claude-code, openai-codex, antigravity (the agy CLI that replaced Gemini
CLI on 2026-06-18), cursor-cli, github-copilot-cli, amp, opencode,
grok-cli. See the full matrix and auth in references/adapters.md, or run:
python scripts/agent_adapters.py list
Confirm the binary is installed and the auth env var is set (the matrix lists it).
Before any real run, dry-run it to see the exact command:
Runs the script_checks in the skill's evals/evals.json, executing each script
and grading its --json output against machine-checkable assertions. Exit non-zero
on any failure — safe for CI. If the skill has few/no script_checks, add them for
every eval whose answer is computable (schema in references/schemas.md); this is
the cheapest, most durable guard against doc↔code drift.
Step 2 — trigger / discovery eval
Does the description fire on the right prompts and stay quiet on near-misses?
# Dry-run first (prints the per-CLI commands, runs nothing):
python scripts/run_trigger_eval.py --skill <path> --agent <agent> --dry-run
# Real run with a labelled query set (~20: half should-trigger, half near-miss):
python scripts/run_trigger_eval.py --skill <path> --agent <agent> \
--queries queries.json --runs-per-query 3 --json
Design the query set per references/methodology.md (positives + tricky
negatives). Without --queries, the skill's eval prompts are used as
should-trigger cases — add negatives for a real discrimination test.
Step 3 — output-quality eval (the with/without delta)
The headline measure: does an agent following the SKILL.md beat no skill?
# 1. Dry-run the plan (no tokens spent):
python scripts/run_quality_eval.py --skill <path> --agent <agent> \
--workspace <skill>-workspace --dry-run
# 2. Real run: with-skill AND no-skill baseline, isolated clean dirs each:
python scripts/run_quality_eval.py --skill <path> --agent <agent> \
--workspace <skill>-workspace --iteration 1 --json
This installs the skill into a temp project skills dir for the with-skill run,
runs a clean baseline without it, and captures outputs/, response.txt, and
timing.json per run.
Then grade each run against its assertions and write grading.json
(references/grader.md — re-derive numbers, require concrete evidence, no partial
credit, critique weak assertions). For mechanically checkable assertions, reuse
Layer 1 rather than eyeballing.
run_summary.delta.pass_rate is the value of the skill. Surface patterns the
averages hide (references/methodology.md): non-discriminating assertions,
high-variance evals, time/token tradeoffs.
Then generate the review and put it in front of the user before you self-grade
(a standalone HTML page — no server needed):
It renders the with/without delta, per-configuration stats, and an expandable
per-eval breakdown of each graded assertion (text, pass/fail, evidence).
Step 4 — iterate
Improve the skill from the signals (failed assertions, weak-assertion feedback,
transcripts, human review), generalizing rather than overfitting, keeping it lean,
explaining the why, and bundling repeated work into scripts. Rerun into
iteration-<N+1>/ and compare. Stop when results satisfy the user, feedback is
empty, or gains plateau. For "is the new version actually better?", use the blind
comparison described in references/methodology.md.
references/methodology.md — the rigorous practices (read for non-trivial evals).
references/grader.md — how to grade a run into grading.json.
references/schemas.md — exact JSON shapes for every file.
eval-viewer/generate_review.py — render a benchmark into a standalone HTML review.
Verification checklist
Do not report a verdict until each item that applies to the layers you ran is satisfied:
Layer 1: ran run_script_checks.py --json, recorded the summary line (checks_passed/checks, assertions_passed/assertions), and confirmed ok: true (process exit 0) — a non-zero exit means doc↔code drift, not a passing skill.
Layer 1: for at least one numeric assertion, re-derived the expected value by hand and confirmed the script's emitted value matches it (e.g. approx within the stated rel_tol/abs_tol) — not merely that the assertion's passed flag is true.
Layer 1: recorded cases_without_checks; if any computable eval lacks a script_check, noted it as a coverage gap rather than treating the run as fully verified.
Layer 2: ran run_trigger_eval.py with a labelled set containing both positives AND tricky negatives, and recorded the per-class pass counts (positives that fired at rate ≥ threshold, negatives that stayed below) — a positives-only run measures recall, not discrimination.
Layer 2: used --runs-per-query ≥ 3 and recorded each query's trigger_rate; flagged any query whose rate sits near the --threshold as unstable rather than counting it as a clean pass/fail.
Layer 3: ran BOTH with_skill and a without_skill baseline, then reported run_summary.delta.pass_rate (the headline value) with mean ± stddev — never an absolute with-skill pass rate alone.
Layer 3: graded each run from the actual files in its outputs/ (re-deriving numbers / opening artifacts per references/grader.md), recorded concrete evidence per expectation, and put the outputs or benchmark.md in front of the user before concluding.
Common pitfalls & rationalizations
Tempting shortcut
Why it's wrong / what to do
"The script ran and exited 0, so the skill is correct."
Exit 0 only means the process did not crash; run_script_checks.py returns non-zero only when an assertion or expect_exit fails. Read the assertions_passed/assertions count and re-derive at least one number — a script can run fine and still emit the wrong value.
"The assertion passed, so the number is right."
A weak assertion (e.g. "mentions cfl_checker.py", or exists/truthy on a field) passes even for a wrong run. Use value+conclusion assertions (approx/eq with a re-derived expected), and act on the grader's eval_feedback that flags trivially-satisfiable assertions.
"All my trigger queries fired, so discovery works."
A positives-only set measures recall, not precision; an over-eager description that triggers on everything also passes. You need tricky near-miss negatives that stay below --threshold — without them the discrimination test is meaningless.
"One run per query is enough to read the trigger rate."
Detection is a heuristic over the transcript and triggering is stochastic; a single run gives a 0/1 rate. Use --runs-per-query ≥ 3 and treat rates hovering at the threshold as unstable, not decisive.
"With-skill pass rate is high, so the skill is valuable."
Value is the with/without delta, not the absolute rate. If the agent already aces the task without the skill, the delta is ~0 and the skill may only add latency/tokens. Always run the without_skill baseline and report delta.pass_rate.
"Assertions passed, no need to open the output files."
Automated grading only checks what you thought to assert, and a transcript can claim work it did not do. Open the files in outputs/, re-derive the numbers, read user_notes.md, and review benchmark.md (or have the user review it) before declaring the skill good.
Security
Input Validation
--agent is resolved against a fixed allowlist of known adapter ids/aliases
(agent_adapters.py); unknown values are rejected (exit 2).
--skill must be a directory containing SKILL.md or the runners exit 2.
script_checks operators and dotted paths are matched against fixed sets; no
user string is ever eval()'d or passed to a shell.
File Access
The deterministic layer runs a skill's own scripts with the real interpreter and
reads only that skill's evals/evals.json.
The quality/trigger layers create isolated working directories under a
user-supplied workspace, copy the skill into them, and write results there.
Tool Restrictions
Bash: runs the harness Python scripts and the selected coding-agent CLI.
Read/Grep/Glob: inspect skills and results. Write: scaffold workspaces.
Safety Measures
No eval()/exec(); subprocess calls use explicit argument lists (never
shell=True); commands are built from the adapter spec, not string-concatenated.
The trigger/quality layers pass each CLI's auto-approve flag (e.g.
--dangerously-skip-permissions), which runs the agent with reduced safeguards.
Only evaluate skills you trust, ideally inside a sandbox/container. Always
--dry-run first to inspect the exact command. Auth is read from environment
variables, never passed as command arguments.
Limitations
Layers 2–3 require a supported CLI installed and authenticated; otherwise use
Layer 1 only.
Trigger detection is a cross-tool heuristic (did the transcript consult the
skill?); for the most precise detection on Claude Code, parse its stream-json
tool-use events.
Token accounting is best-effort — only some CLIs report usage in headless output.
New CLIs (Antigravity, Grok) are medium confidence; verify flags with the
vendor --help and --dry-run.
