Skills wshobson agents

llm-evaluation

Use it when:
You need to know whether a prompt, model or pipeline change made your LLM app better or worse, or want a baseline before shipping.
It does:
Lays out three kinds of evaluation: computed metrics, human ratings, and LLM-as-judge, where a stronger model scores or compares answers.
You get:
Python for a suite that scores test cases on several metrics; its reference file adds judge prompts, rater guidelines, significance tests and a regression detector.
Metrics:
BLEU and ROUGE for word overlap, BERTScore for meaning, accuracy and F1 for classification, and MRR, NDCG and precision or recall at K for retrieval.

TL;DR

A reference for testing LLM applications, not one tool's manual. Automated metrics are fast and repeatable: overlap scores for translations and summaries, embedding similarity, classification scores, and ranking scores for retrieval in RAG systems. Human evaluation rates accuracy, coherence, relevance, fluency, safety and helpfulness. LLM-as-judge comes pointwise (score one answer) or pairwise (pick the better of two), with or without a reference answer. The quick start is an EvaluationSuite that runs a model over test cases and averages each metric. Its reference file implements BLEU, ROUGE and BERTScore; custom checks for groundedness and factuality with NLI models, which judge whether a source supports a claim, and for toxicity with Detoxify; Claude judge prompts for single, pairwise and reference-based scoring; annotation guidelines for human raters; Cohen's kappa for agreement between raters; A/B tests with statistical significance and effect size; a detector that flags metrics more than 5% below a baseline; a LangSmith evaluation example; and a benchmark runner.

Summarizes the skill at 4bde316.

npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill llm-evaluation
Total Downloads
13,300 on skills.sh, Nov 9, 2026
Repo stars
42,334 wshobson/agents
First seen
Jan 20, 2026 on skills.sh
Weekly Downloads
245
-12% over the 8 weeks to Nov 9
Weekly values
Week toInstalls
Sep 21277
Sep 28280
Oct 5359
Oct 12310
Oct 19259
Oct 26256
Nov 2248
Nov 9245
Category

Build agents, orchestrate workers and give agents memory.

Find root causes, review code and test what you built.

Everything for building software: planning, coding, debugging, design, frameworks, cloud, agents and skills.

Type

Knowledge and rules the agent applies while it works: best practices, design principles, API references.

Effect

Adds no side effects of its own. It shapes how the agent thinks, writes or reviews. Guidelines and routers are always effect:none, even when the task they support edits code.

Needs

Instructions only. Works in any agent that supports skills.

Publisher

Everyone else. Unverified vendor claims default to community.

Topics

SKILL.md

From wshobson/agents at 4bde316. Checked daily, last changed Nov 6, 2026.

Frontmatter
name: llm-evaluation
description: Implement comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications using automated metrics, human feedback, and benchmarking. Use when testing LLM performance, measuring AI application quality, or establishing evaluation frameworks.

LLM Evaluation

Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.

When to Use This Skill

  • Measuring LLM application performance systematically
  • Comparing different models or prompts
  • Detecting performance regressions before deployment
  • Validating improvements from prompt changes
  • Building confidence in production systems
  • Establishing baselines and tracking progress over time
  • Debugging unexpected model behavior

Core Evaluation Types

1. Automated Metrics

Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.

Text Generation:

  • BLEU: N-gram overlap (translation)
  • ROUGE: Recall-oriented (summarization)
  • METEOR: Semantic similarity
  • BERTScore: Embedding-based similarity
  • Perplexity: Language model confidence

Classification:

  • Accuracy: Percentage correct
  • Precision/Recall/F1: Class-specific performance
  • Confusion Matrix: Error patterns
  • AUC-ROC: Ranking quality

Retrieval (RAG):

  • MRR: Mean Reciprocal Rank
  • NDCG: Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain
  • Precision@K: Relevant in top K
  • Recall@K: Coverage in top K
2. Human Evaluation

Manual assessment for quality aspects difficult to automate.

Dimensions:

  • Accuracy: Factual correctness
  • Coherence: Logical flow
  • Relevance: Answers the question
  • Fluency: Natural language quality
  • Safety: No harmful content
  • Helpfulness: Useful to the user
3. LLM-as-Judge

Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs.

Approaches:

  • Pointwise: Score individual responses
  • Pairwise: Compare two responses
  • Reference-based: Compare to gold standard
  • Reference-free: Judge without ground truth

Quick Start

from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Callable
import numpy as np

@dataclass
class Metric:
    name: str
    fn: Callable

    @staticmethod
    def accuracy():
        return Metric("accuracy", calculate_accuracy)

    @staticmethod
    def bleu():
        return Metric("bleu", calculate_bleu)

    @staticmethod
    def bertscore():
        return Metric("bertscore", calculate_bertscore)

    @staticmethod
    def custom(name: str, fn: Callable):
        return Metric(name, fn)

class EvaluationSuite:
    def __init__(self, metrics: list[Metric]):
        self.metrics = metrics

    async def evaluate(self, model, test_cases: list[dict]) -> dict:
        results = {m.name: [] for m in self.metrics}

        for test in test_cases:
            prediction = await model.predict(test["input"])

            for metric in self.metrics:
                score = metric.fn(
                    prediction=prediction,
                    reference=test.get("expected"),
                    context=test.get("context")
                )
                results[metric.name].append(score)

        return {
            "metrics": {k: np.mean(v) for k, v in results.items()},
            "raw_scores": results
        }

# Usage
suite = EvaluationSuite([
    Metric.accuracy(),
    Metric.bleu(),
    Metric.bertscore(),
    Metric.custom("groundedness", check_groundedness)
])

test_cases = [
    {
        "input": "What is the capital of France?",
        "expected": "Paris",
        "context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital."
    },
]

results = await suite.evaluate(model=your_model, test_cases=test_cases)

Detailed patterns and worked examples

Detailed pattern documentation lives in references/details.md. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.