4.5K skills · sorted by relevance
Compare text and metadata extracted by two Tika builds from the same file collection. Generate reports to investigate content differences, encoding changes, new exceptions, and missing embedded documents, then repeat the evaluation after fixes.
Assess papers, research proposals, and literature reviews using structured quality criteria. Receive strengths, weaknesses, optional five-point scores, and prioritized suggestions tied to specific sections, with expectations adjusted to the work’s purpose and development stage.
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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
[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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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`.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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`).
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Eval-Driven Development (EDD) for AI workflows. pass@k metrics, capability evals, regression evals. Triggers: eval, edd, pass@k, capability, regression, benchmark.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when packaging ACM CCS artifacts for the artifact-evaluation committee and the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, Artifacts Evaluated Reusable, and Results Reproduced — covering what security evaluators inspect, how to make attacks and defenses turnkey, and how to justify withheld artifacts.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Build custom LLM evaluation pipelines using the OpenJudge framework. Covers selecting and configuring graders (LLM-based, function-based, agentic), running batch evaluations with GradingRunner, combining scores with aggregators, applying evaluation strategies (voting, average), auto-generating graders from data, and analyzing results (pairwise win rates, statistics, validation metrics). Use when the user wants to evaluate LLM outputs, compare multiple models, design scoring criteria, or build an automated evaluation system.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when the user has nothing — no traces, no labels, no eval set — and needs to build a v0 evaluation from scratch. Also use when the user says "I need to start evaluating my app but don't know where to begin," "I want to set up eval for a new product," or has just identified failure modes and needs to turn them into principles. Outputs a v0 grader in 30 minutes using OpenJudge SimpleRubricsGenerator, plus a roadmap to reach calibrated evaluation.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining multiple metrics into a composite score, or building an automated evaluation pipeline. Also use when the user mentions grader selection, metric design, judge prompt engineering, rubric design, evaluation pipeline code, or "how to evaluate [X] automatically." Outputs executable OpenJudge pipeline code.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
RFP creation, distribution, evaluation, and shortlisting for in-house legal teams selecting outside counsel. Draft a new legal services RFP from scratch, evaluate firm responses against weighted criteria, produce a shortlist recommendation with selection rationale for GC sign-off, or design the end-to-end RFP process from scratch. Trigger on: 'draft an RFP', 'run an RFP process', 'evaluate firm responses', 'score the RFP submissions', 'which firms should we shortlist', 'selection recommendation', 'how do we run a panel RFP', 'RFP for legal services', 'pitch process', 'firm selection process', 'compare the proposals', 'we're reviewing our panel', 'panel refresh RFP', 'we need to go to market', 'request for proposal', 'evaluate the pitches', 'which firm won the RFP', 'write a legal RFP', 'RFP evaluation criteria', 'design the RFP process', 'how do we weight the criteria'.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Create and check long-running video material evaluation tasks. Use this skill when the user wants to submit videos for evaluation, check an existing video evaluation task list, or fetch the result of a previously created video evaluation task. This skill is not a general-purpose video upload skill because upload is allowed only as an internal step of task creation. Authentication uses an API key passed as an Authorization bearer token.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Decomposed, multi-criteria metric design for LLM pipelines. The metric IS the model — change the metric and the optimizer changes behavior. Decompose by default; bool during compile, float during eval; calibrate against human; mitigate judge bias. Search keywords: LLM-as-judge, llm as judge, eval metric, evaluation score, scoring function, rubric, RAGAS, G-Eval, judge bias, verbosity bias, how to evaluate LLM output.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
MLflow 3 GenAI agent evaluation. Use when writing mlflow.genai.evaluate() code, creating @scorer functions, using built-in scorers (Guidelines, Correctness, Safety, RetrievalGroundedness), building eval datasets from traces, setting up trace ingestion and production monitoring, aligning judges with MemAlign from domain expert feedback, or running optimize_prompts() with GEPA for automated prompt improvement.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Think and work like an expert Information Retrieval Scientist. Use when a task calls for Information Retrieval Scientist judgment. Reasons from the Probability Ranking Principle, Saracevic's relevance layers, and Cranfield pooling through tuned BM25, SPLADE/ColBERT/dense and LLM reranking, trec_eval/ir_measures with paired topic-level tests, interleaving, and nugget-based RAG evaluation while treating unjudged-as-nonrelevant pools, position-biased clicks, LLM-judge circularity, single-vector embedding limits, and benchmark contamination as first-class failure modes.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Iterative rubric-based evaluation and self-improvement loop. Builds a scoring rubric interactively, evaluates an artifact with multiple models in parallel (Codex, Gemini, Claude), then autonomously improves the artifact one criterion at a time until a score threshold is met or circuit breaker fires. "/rulph", "rubric evaluate", "rubric score", "multi-model evaluate", "score and improve", "evaluate and iterate", "grade this", "루브릭 루프", "채점 루프", "자율 개선", "개선 루프", "루브릭 평가"
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when 王建硕 wants to evaluate whether a change to VoiceDrop's 挖矿 system prompt is actually better than the live version — runs the local eval harness (golden fixtures × champion-vs-candidate, same input), dispatches blind pairwise judge subagents, aggregates a win-rate verdict, and on approval promotes the candidate into agent/src/prompts/mine.js. Triggers — "评估 prompt"、"挖矿 prompt 改好了吗"、"eval prompt"、"比一比两版 prompt"、"/wjs-evaling-voicedrop-prompts".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Audit existing eval coverage — gaps, metric validity, benchmark leakage, dataset freshness. Use when asked "what eval coverage do we have", "audit our evals", or "check for benchmark leakage".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.