本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

agentic-eval

Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs. Use this skill when: - Implementing self-critique and reflection loops - Building evaluator-optimizer pipelines for quality-critical generation - Creating test-driven code refinement workflows - Designing rubric-based or LLM-as-judge evaluation systems - Adding iterative improvement to agent outputs (code, reports, analysis) - Measuring and improving agent response quality

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Agentic Evaluation Patterns

Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.

Overview

Evaluation patterns enable agents to assess and improve their own outputs, moving beyond single-shot generation to iterative refinement loops.

Generate → Evaluate → Critique → Refine → Output
    ↑                              │
    └──────────────────────────────┘

When to Use

  • Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy
  • Tasks with clear evaluation criteria: Defined success metrics exist
  • Content requiring specific standards: Style guides, compliance, formatting

Pattern 1: Basic Reflection

Agent evaluates and improves its own output through self-critique.

def reflect_and_refine(task: str, criteria: list[str], max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
    """Generate with reflection loop."""
    output = llm(f"Complete this task:\n{task}")
    
    for i in range(max_iterations):
        # Self-critique
        critique = llm(f"""
        Evaluate this output against criteria: {criteria}
        Output: {output}
        Rate each: PASS/FAIL with feedback as JSON.
        """)
        
        critique_data = json.loads(critique)
        all_pass = all(c["status"] == "PASS" for c in critique_data.values())
        if all_pass:
            return output
        
        # Refine based on critique
        failed = {k: v["feedback"] for k, v in critique_data.items() if v["status"] == "FAIL"}
        output = llm(f"Improve to address: {failed}\nOriginal: {output}")
    
    return output

Key insight: Use structured JSON output for reliable parsing of critique results.


Pattern 2: Evaluator-Optimizer

Separate generation and evaluation into distinct components for clearer responsibilities.

class EvaluatorOptimizer:
    def __init__(self, score_threshold: float = 0.8):
        self.score_threshold = score_threshold
    
    def generate(self, task: str) -> str:
        return llm(f"Complete: {task}")
    
    def evaluate(self, output: str, task: str) -> dict:
        return json.loads(llm(f"""
        Evaluate output for task: {task}
        Output: {output}
        Return JSON: {{"overall_score": 0-1, "dimensions": {{"accuracy": ..., "clarity": ...}}}}
        """))
    
    def optimize(self, output: str, feedback: dict) -> str:
        return llm(f"Improve based on feedback: {feedback}\nOutput: {output}")
    
    def run(self, task: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
        output = self.generate(task)
        for _ in range(max_iterations):
            evaluation = self.evaluate(output, task)
            if evaluation["overall_score"] >= self.score_threshold:
                break
            output = self.optimize(output, evaluation)
        return output

Pattern 3: Code-Specific Reflection

Test-driven refinement loop for code generation.

class CodeReflector:
    def reflect_and_fix(self, spec: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
        code = llm(f"Write Python code for: {spec}")
        tests = llm(f"Generate pytest tests for: {spec}\nCode: {code}")
        
        for _ in range(max_iterations):
            result = run_tests(code, tests)
            if result["success"]:
                return code
            code = llm(f"Fix error: {result['error']}\nCode: {code}")
        return code

Evaluation Strategies

Outcome-Based

Evaluate whether output achieves the expected result.

def evaluate_outcome(task: str, output: str, expected: str) -> str:
    return llm(f"Does output achieve expected outcome? Task: {task}, Expected: {expected}, Output: {output}")

LLM-as-Judge

Use LLM to compare and rank outputs.

def llm_judge(output_a: str, output_b: str, criteria: str) -> str:
    return llm(f"Compare outputs A and B for {criteria}. Which is better and why?")

Rubric-Based

Score outputs against weighted dimensions.

RUBRIC = {
    "accuracy": {"weight": 0.4},
    "clarity": {"weight": 0.3},
    "completeness": {"weight": 0.3}
}

def evaluate_with_rubric(output: str, rubric: dict) -> float:
    scores = json.loads(llm(f"Rate 1-5 for each dimension: {list(rubric.keys())}\nOutput: {output}"))
    return sum(scores[d] * rubric[d]["weight"] for d in rubric) / 5

Best Practices

PracticeRationale
Clear criteriaDefine specific, measurable evaluation criteria upfront
Iteration limitsSet max iterations (3-5) to prevent infinite loops
Convergence checkStop if output score isn't improving between iterations
Log historyKeep full trajectory for debugging and analysis
Structured outputUse JSON for reliable parsing of evaluation results

Quick Start Checklist

## Evaluation Implementation Checklist

### Setup
- [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric
- [ ] Set score threshold for "good enough"
- [ ] Configure max iterations (default: 3)

### Implementation
- [ ] Implement generate() function
- [ ] Implement evaluate() function with structured output
- [ ] Implement optimize() function
- [ ] Wire up the refinement loop

### Safety
- [ ] Add convergence detection
- [ ] Log all iterations for debugging
- [ ] Handle evaluation parse failures gracefully

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.

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。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.

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。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.

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。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.

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。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Use this skill when the user shares ad campaign performance data and asks what to cut, scale, or test. Trigger for prompts like "analyze my ad campaigns", "where am I wasting ad spend", "reallocate my ad budget", "which ads are actually working", or "ROAS analysis". Do not trigger for campaign planning or creative generation without performance data.

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。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Add educational comments to the file specified, or prompt asking for file to comment if one is not provided.

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。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

github のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する