一键导入
agent-eval
Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Gemini Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Gemini Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Add x402 payment execution to AI agents — per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets via MCP tools. Use when agents need to pay for APIs, services, or other agents.
Regression testing strategies for AI-assisted development. Sandbox-mode API testing without database dependencies, automated bug-check workflows, and patterns to catch AI blind spots where the same model writes and reviews code.
Capture architectural decisions made during Gemini Code sessions as structured ADRs. Auto-detects decision moments, records context, alternatives considered, and rationale. Maintains an ADR log so future developers understand why the codebase is shaped the way it is.
Patterns and architectures for autonomous Gemini Code loops — from simple sequential pipelines to RFC-driven multi-agent DAG systems.
Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".
Use this skill to automate visual testing and UI interaction verification using browser automation after deploying features.
| name | agent-eval |
| description | Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Gemini Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics |
| origin | ECC |
| tools | Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob |
A lightweight CLI tool for comparing coding agents head-to-head on reproducible tasks. Every "which coding agent is best?" comparison runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it.
Note: Install agent-eval from its repository after reviewing the source.
Define tasks declaratively. Each task specifies what to do, which files to touch, and how to judge success:
name: add-retry-logic
description: Add exponential backoff retry to the HTTP client
repo: ./my-project
files:
- src/http_client.py
prompt: |
Add retry logic with exponential backoff to all HTTP requests.
Max 3 retries. Initial delay 1s, max delay 30s.
judge:
- type: pytest
command: pytest tests/test_http_client.py -v
- type: grep
pattern: "exponential_backoff|retry"
files: src/http_client.py
commit: "abc1234" # pin to specific commit for reproducibility
Each agent run gets its own git worktree — no Docker required. This provides reproducibility isolation so agents cannot interfere with each other or corrupt the base repo.
| Metric | What It Measures |
|---|---|
| Pass rate | Did the agent produce code that passes the judge? |
| Cost | API spend per task (when available) |
| Time | Wall-clock seconds to completion |
| Consistency | Pass rate across repeated runs (e.g., 3/3 = 100%) |
Create a tasks/ directory with YAML files, one per task:
mkdir tasks
# Write task definitions (see template above)
Execute agents against your tasks:
agent-eval run --task tasks/add-retry-logic.yaml --agent gemini-code --agent aider --runs 3
Each run:
Generate a comparison report:
agent-eval report --format table
Task: add-retry-logic (3 runs each)
┌──────────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────────┐
│ Agent │ Pass Rate │ Cost │ Time │ Consistency │
├──────────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────────┤
│ gemini-code │ 3/3 │ $0.12 │ 45s │ 100% │
│ aider │ 2/3 │ $0.08 │ 38s │ 67% │
└──────────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴─────────────┘
judge:
- type: pytest
command: pytest tests/ -v
- type: command
command: npm run build
judge:
- type: grep
pattern: "class.*Retry"
files: src/**/*.py
judge:
- type: llm
prompt: |
Does this implementation correctly handle exponential backoff?
Check for: max retries, increasing delays, jitter.