87 skills · sorted by relevance
Create Vally evaluation specifications for skills, custom agents, and workflow packages. Design distinct test requests, prepare fixture files, define automated checks and outcome rubrics, and size comparisons to provide meaningful evidence without favoring the skill’s wording.
Review papers, drafts, and research ideas with evidence-linked feedback focused on improvement. Audit low-stakes assessment rubrics, trace supporting evidence, and check rater agreement and uncertainty without ranking people or recommending consequential decisions.
Build and test scoring criteria for selecting relevant research papers. Refine the rules against your judgments, screen large sets of abstracts, and reassess saved papers when criteria change, with records of scores and revisions.
Scoring rubrics for all 5 pipeline layers (Vision, Architecture, IA, BE, FE). Use when auditing specs, running self-checks, or remediating ambiguity gaps.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Assess a scoped competitor set across nine dimensions using evidence and consistent scoring criteria. Produce comparable profile cards and a two-axis positioning plot to show rival strengths, weaknesses, and competitors occupying the client's target space.
Compare competitors using evidence-backed scores for positioning, brand expression, services, credibility, and other dimensions. Produce consistent profile cards and a two-axis chart showing which rivals occupy the market position your client wants to claim.
Design criteria for using an LLM to judge AI responses through scoring or comparisons between two answers. Includes checks for order and length bias, plus validation against human judgments to assess evaluation reliability.
Build repeatable evaluations for AI agent responses, tool choices, and multi-step tasks. Use reference datasets and scoring criteria to compare changes, detect quality regressions, and set automated checks that must pass before deployment.
Explains how PluginEval combines structural checks and experimental model assessments into quality scores. Helps interpret low scores, identify improvement areas, set marketplace thresholds, and explain what evaluation badges actually represent.
Design interview processes for specific roles and experience levels, with round objectives, timing, suggested questions, and scoring criteria. Help interviewers align their judgments and review potential bias before using the process.
Design systems that use language models to judge AI responses. Covers scoring criteria, comparisons between two answers, bias reduction, confidence calibration, and checks against human judgments to make automated quality assessments more consistent and traceable.
Design evaluation systems that measure agent results across accuracy, completeness, citations, and tool efficiency. Build repeatable tests, compare changes against a baseline, and define quality checks that catch regressions before deployment and monitor production performance.
Design and improve prompts for language models, then test their accuracy and consistency. Create reusable templates, JSON output schemas that define response structure, evaluation criteria, and test cases while considering token use and model differences.
Add team-specific evaluation criteria to plugin-eval by designing a metric pack, a set of custom checks and measurements. Create its manifest and JSON-producing script, then run it through the evaluator using a consistent output structure.
Use Jev to choose among available tools, skills, or agents, or assess outputs against explicit criteria. Receive structured selections, scores, or probabilities to support decisions within a defined set of options.
Evaluate work on a ten-point scale using clear criteria, then improve each item toward a chosen target. Record evidence, compare before-and-after scores, and explain any remaining gaps without rounding scores up to claim success.
Design a GenLayer review workflow for agents acting on a blockchain. Define evaluation criteria, evidence formats, decision outputs, and the connection needed to turn review decisions into restrictions or revocation of delegated authority.
Authoring and running behavioral evals for a shopping or merchant agent, covering the case shape, authoring rules, code graders and judges, the run pattern, and poisoned fixtures. Load when writing eval cases or rubrics or deciding how a suite runs.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Provide qualitative-first, evidence-traceable developmental review of scholarly works and audit low-stakes research-assessment rubrics with optional local quality controls. Never use for ranking people or consequential decisions.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Create professional presentations using the Pyramid Principle methodology. Supports PPTX generation, Marp/Reveal.js Markdown slides, chart creation, speaker notes, and self-evaluation rubrics. Minimal intake form to rapid output workflow.
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.
Reviews skill quality with evidence-based design rubrics and read-only batch inventories. Use for self-review, external skill or repository audits, and authorized auto-PR improvements. Separates design quality from measured task benefit and host compatibility.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Design an evaluation plan for an LLM or AI feature before shipping it. Use when asked how to evaluate a prompt/model/agent, set up an eval harness, define quality metrics for an AI feature, or build a regression gate. Produces an eval plan — task definition, datasets, metrics & rubrics, baselines, automated + human evals, a pass bar, and a regression gate.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Classify constitutional (germline) copy number variants for clinical reporting using the 2019 ACMG/ClinGen technical standards points-based framework, with ClassifyCNV and AnnotSV for semi-automated scoring. Covers the separate copy-number-loss and copy-number-gain rubrics, the five-tier classification, ClinGen haploinsufficiency/triplosensitivity and dosage-sensitive regions, de novo and segregation evidence, and population-frequency benign evidence. Use when assigning pathogenic/likely-pathogenic/VUS/likely-benign/benign to a constitutional CNV, scoring a CNV against ACMG/ClinGen criteria, or distinguishing the automatable evidence from the case-specific evidence requiring manual input.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.