「eval」の検索結果

Run AI agent and LLM evaluations in CI/CD pipelines — automated quality gates that fail the build when AI output quality drops. Use when someone asks to "test my AI agent", "add evals to CI", "catch prompt regressions", "compare models", "evaluate LLM output quality", "set up AI quality gates", or "benchmark my agent before deploying". Covers eval frameworks (Cobalt, Promptfoo, Braintrust), LLM-as-judge scoring, threshold-based assertions, and GitHub Actions integration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audit whether a paper's EVALUATION DESIGN actually measures what it claims and whether its reporting is complete — the validity layer family D (experiment-forensics) cannot reach. Three patterns: train/test leakage means the reported score may not measure generalization (HP-EVAL-LEAKAGE — adopts the Kapoor & Narayanan 8-type / 3-category leakage taxonomy; the illegitimate-proxy / sampling-bias / pretraining-contamination subtypes hand off as needs_external_check, naming but NEVER running Oren-2023 exchangeability / Shi-2023 Min-K% / Golchin-2023 Time-Travel / BIG-bench canary); a load-bearing LLM judge is conflicted (same model/family as a compared system) or unvalidated (no human-agreement, no bias control) (HP-JUDGE-VALIDITY); a declared condition/metric is dropped or switched to favor the method, or 'best' is chosen with no held-out set (HP-SELECTIVE-REPORTING). Verdict-bearing at L0/L1 from the DESCRIBED protocol — NOT repo-gated like experiment-forensics; L2 only CONFIRMS against split/preprocessing/result files. A fresh cross-model reviewer (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh, read-only, fresh thread per pass) PROPOSES findings, each span-anchored to a ledger claim_id; tools/adjudicate_findings.py DECIDES the verdict. Leakage and under-reporting are usually HONEST methodological errors — every finding describes a discrepancy to CHECK, never an accusation. An LLM generating GROUND-TRUTH labels is HP-FAKE-GT (experiment-forensics) — routed there, not here. Emits eval-design-forensics.findings.json; computes NO verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "eval design audit", "evaluation validity", "train/test leakage", "data leakage", "is the score measuring generalization", "LLM judge bias", "is the judge validated", "selective reporting", "cherry-picked results", "评估设计审计", "评测有效性", "数据泄漏", "训练测试集泄漏", "裁判模型有没有验证", "选择性报告".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Advanced Evaluation workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs This skill should be used when the user asks to "implement LLM-as-judge", "compare model outputs", "create evaluation rubrics", "mitigate evaluation bias", or mentions direct scoring, pairwise comparison, position bias, evaluation pipelines, or automated quality assessment and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Measures and improves the quality of AI models and agents on Google Cloud using the Eval Quality Flywheel methodology. Use when evaluating an agent or model, building an eval dataset, picking or writing evaluation metrics, analyzing failures, comparing results before and after a fix, or when guidance is needed on Agent Platform eval methodology — including dataset schema, LLM-as-judge scoring, and common failure causes. For fine-tuning, use agent-platform-tuning. For general production deployment, use agent-platform-deploy.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate Jira ticket complexity + inconsistencies via the jira-evaluator agent. Read-only. Triggers: 'evaluate KEY', 'analyze ticket complexity for KEY', 'check ticket quality for KEY'. NOT for estimation (mk:jira-estimator); NOT for full RCA (mk:jira-analyst).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Improve AI application with evaluation-driven development. Define eval criteria, instrument the application, build golden datasets, observe and evaluate application runs, analyze results, and produce a concrete action plan for improvements. ALWAYS USE THIS SKILL when the user asks to set up QA, add tests, add evals, evaluate, benchmark, fix wrong behaviors, improve quality, or do quality assurance for any Python project that calls an LLM model.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate AI observability evaluations of both types — `hog` (deterministic code-based) and `llm_judge` (LLM-prompt-based). Find existing evaluations, inspect their configuration, run them against specific generations, query individual pass/fail results, and generate AI-powered summaries of patterns across many runs. Use when the user asks to debug why an evaluation is failing, surface common failure modes, compare results across filters, dry-run a Hog evaluator, prototype a new LLM-judge prompt, or manage the evaluation lifecycle (create, update, enable/disable, delete).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates LLMs across 60+ academic benchmarks (MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, TruthfulQA, HellaSwag). Use when benchmarking model quality, comparing models, reporting academic results, or tracking training progress. Industry standard used by EleutherAI, HuggingFace, and major labs. Supports HuggingFace, vLLM, APIs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates LLMs across 100+ benchmarks from 18+ harnesses (MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, safety, VLM) with multi-backend execution. Use when needing scalable evaluation on local Docker, Slurm HPC, or cloud platforms. NVIDIA's enterprise-grade platform with container-first architecture for reproducible benchmarking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates code generation models across HumanEval, MBPP, MultiPL-E, and 15+ benchmarks with pass@k metrics. Use when benchmarking code models, comparing coding abilities, testing multi-language support, or measuring code generation quality. Industry standard from BigCode Project used by HuggingFace leaderboards.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

The meta skill. Turn any raw feature into a properly-skilled, tested, resolvable unit of agent capability. Idempotent: running on an existing skill improves it (bug fix, new input, quality pass) instead of starting from scratch. Every skill declares an EVAL CONTRACT (its goal + skill-specific dimensions + hard-fails) so the cross-modal eval judges THIS skill's real purpose, not generic slop. Cross-modal eval runs BEFORE tests: 3 frontier models from different providers critique the output against the contract, you iterate to quality, THEN write/update tests that lock in the proven-good behavior. NO-REGRESSION LAW: any edit to a skill must score >= the previous iteration's eval — forward only, never back. For skills that back a scheduled job, an edit MUST re-run a representative task and eval it before shipping.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assertion-first AI eval framework aligned to Anthropic's 'Demystifying evals for AI agents' — typed deterministic asserts + a forced-structured LLM judge over an input→assert case schema, pass^k/pass@k, capability vs regression suites, subscription-billed. USE WHEN eval, evaluate, benchmark, regression test, assertion, assert, llm-rubric, judge, pass@k, pass^k, grade output, compare prompts/models, test agent. NOT FOR scientific-method framing (use Science), property/mutation testing of code (use Hardening), or live UI verification (use Interceptor).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates NVIDIA Cosmos Policy on LIBERO and RoboCasa simulation environments. Use when setting up cosmos-policy for robot manipulation evaluation, running headless GPU evaluations with EGL rendering, or profiling inference latency on cluster or local GPU machines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates code generation models across HumanEval, MBPP, MultiPL-E, and 15+ benchmarks with pass@k metrics. Use when benchmarking code models, comparing coding abilities, testing multi-language support, or measuring code generation quality. Industry standard from BigCode Project used by HuggingFace leaderboards.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate a repo agent harness (AGENTS.md, rules, skills, skill refs) for broken paths/commands, redundant instructions, and usefulness using a stack-agnostic dual-judge protocol with planted traps. HIGH PRIORITY questionnaires at top: Q1 optional docs, Q2 B/C budget before Track A (certainty/tokens). A always runs after Q2; B/C opt-in. ADRs/RFCs excluded from T2. Mixed apply uses 11-mixed-apply.md (KEEP/CUT). Use when the user says harness eval, harness-eval, harness debug, audit AGENTS.md, audit skills/rules, instruction audit, redundancy of agent instructions, usefulness of skills, Ship/Review/Hold/Slim/Keep-core for harness, or wants Track A/B/C harness evaluation. Do NOT use for harness setup or init, feature spec-driven work (tlc-spec-driven), or applying Ship/Slim trims unless the user explicitly asks after the report.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates code generation models across HumanEval, MBPP, MultiPL-E, and 15+ benchmarks with pass@k metrics. Use when benchmarking code models, comparing coding abilities, testing multi-language support, or measuring code generation quality. Industry standard from BigCode Project used by HuggingFace leaderboards.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

[omh] Choosing between coding agents on evidence: compare executor or agent choices on reproducible tasks using quality, cost, time, tool, and evidence metrics. Use when the user says: agent-evaluation, agent evaluation, agent eval, agent benchmark, executor evaluation, executor benchmark, compare agents, compare codex claude.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

A comprehensive auditor for any agent skill — including Manus, OpenClaw/ClawHub, Claude, LobeHub, or custom SKILL.md-based skills. Use this skill whenever a user wants to evaluate, audit, review, score, or quality-check an agent skill before publishing, updating, or deploying. Covers two hard veto gates (structural redlines + research integrity redlines), static quality scoring across 25 criteria (ISO 25010 + OpenSSF + Agent), dynamic test input generation, multi-mode execution testing, multi-layer output evaluation with five specialized category rubrics (Evidence Insight / Protocol Design / Data Analysis / Academic Writing / Other), a Research Veto that applies to all four research categories, human eval viewer generation, actionable P0/P1/P2 optimization recommendations, and automatic skill improvement that outputs a polished, production-ready SKILL.md. Also use whenever a user says "audit my skill", "evaluate my skill", "improve my skill", or wants a corrected version after evaluation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turn student course evaluations (free-text + numeric) into an actionable teaching-improvement plan — the teaching analogue of /respond-to-referees. Clusters comments into themes, separates signal from noise, classifies each theme Keep / Change / Investigate / Out-of-scope, and drafts concrete changes mapped to the syllabus and slide decks. Use when user says "respond to my evals", "what do these course evaluations tell me", "turn my teaching feedback into a plan", or after a semester's evals arrive.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Entry point for evals. Use when the user asks for help with evals, does not know where to begin, or asks for something no other skill in this plugin matches. Do NOT use when a more specific skill in this plugin already matches; load that skill directly.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design LLM-as-Judge evaluators for subjective criteria that code-based checks cannot handle. Use when a failure mode requires interpretation (tone, faithfulness, relevance, completeness). Do NOT use when the failure mode can be checked with code (regex, schema validation, execution tests); use `write-code-eval`. To validate an existing judge, use `validate-evaluator`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Calibrate an LLM judge against human labels using data splits, TPR/TNR, and bias correction. Use after writing a judge prompt (write-judge-prompt) when you need to verify alignment before trusting its outputs. Do NOT use for code-based evaluators (those are deterministic; test with unit tests per `write-code-eval`).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Configures and runs LLM evaluation using Promptfoo framework. Use when setting up prompt testing, creating evaluation configs (promptfooconfig.yaml), writing Python custom assertions, implementing llm-rubric for LLM-as-judge, or managing few-shot examples in prompts. Triggers on keywords like "promptfoo", "eval", "LLM evaluation", "prompt testing", or "model comparison".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Eval-Driven Development (EDD) for AI workflows. pass@k metrics, capability evals, regression evals. Triggers: eval, edd, pass@k, capability, regression, benchmark.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。