Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

model-bench

Run a 3-leg evaluation against a newly released LLM. Leg 1 is trap questions with deterministic answers, leg 2 is an agentic orchestration task with a planted failure, leg 3 is a brownfield feature build in a real repo. Use when the user wants to vibe-check, test, evaluate, or compare a new frontier model, or mentions model-bench, model vibe check, or launch-day protocol.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (7)

  • SKILL.md4.7 KB
  • grading/answer-key.md770 B
  • grading/rubrics.md1.4 KB
  • results/.gitkeep0 B
  • tasks/leg-1.md3.5 KB
  • tasks/leg-2.md1.4 KB
  • tasks/leg-3.md1.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

model-bench

3 legs, each aimed at a different failure mode:

  1. Trap questions: does it think, or pattern-match to training data? Deterministic answers, grades in seconds.
  2. Orchestration: can it plan, delegate, and recover when a step fails (including a planted trap)?
  3. Brownfield build: can it ship a feature into an existing codebase without breaking things 2 files away?

Each leg scores 0-5. Total out of 15.

Contamination rules (read first)

  • The model under test must NEVER see gold answers or learn about the planted trap. If it does, that leg is void.
  • Private answer key lives outside this repo: ~/proctor/model-bench/answer-key.md (or grading/answer-key.local.md, gitignored). Public stub: grading/answer-key.md. Legs 2–3 checklists: grading/rubrics.md.
  • This skill runs in a proctor session (Nate plus a model he already trusts). The model under test only ever receives the task prompts — never this skill folder, never the private key.
  • Never use this repo as the target repo for legs 2–3.
  • Leg 1 isolation: launch each question in a context with no access to this workspace (no tools / empty workspace / chat-only). If the target model can Read files here, the leg is void.
  • One fresh session per leg. No custom system prompts or rules that would coach the model.

Workflow

Progress:
- [ ] Setup: pick target model, pick target repo, verify leg 2 plant
- [ ] Leg 1: proctor launches 5 parallel subagents (one question each), record final answers
- [ ] Leg 2: paste orchestration task into a fresh agent session on the target repo
- [ ] Leg 3: paste brownfield spec into a fresh agent session, branch per model
- [ ] Grade leg 1 with the private answer key; legs 2–3 with grading/rubrics.md
- [ ] Fill scorecard, save to results/, write 2-3 sentence verdict per model

Setup

  • Target repo for legs 2-3: a real repo with existing conventions, ideally one Nate knows well enough to judge output quality. Never this repo.
  • Verify the leg 2 planted path (default docs/METRICS.md) does not exist in the target repo. If it does, pick another plausible-but-missing path and note it.
  • When comparing models, use identical prompts, identical repo state, and a fresh branch per model (vibe/<model-name>).

Run the legs

Leg 1 (proctor-driven) The proctor AI runs leg 1. Do not make the human paste questions. Launch 5 parallel subagents with the target model slug, each receiving exactly one fenced question from tasks/leg-1.md and nothing else. Record final answers only. Isolation: those subagents must not be able to read this repo (no tools, or empty/disposable workspace). Same-workspace leg 1 = void. If the target model has no subagent slug (common on launch day), use five fresh chats the same way — still proctor-driven, not human paste. Do not use subagents for legs 2–3 in this workspace. Those legs run in separate sessions on the target repo.

Grade

  • Leg 1 gold: private key at ~/proctor/model-bench/answer-key.md (see grading/answer-key.md stub)
  • Legs 2–3: grading/rubrics.md
  • Only open the private key after all legs have been run, and never in a session where the target model is active.

Results

Save each filled scorecard to results/YYYY-MM-DD.md (append -2, -3 for multiple runs on one day). Use this template:

# Vibe check: [date]

Target repo: [repo]
Leg 2 plant: [path used]
Leg 3 spec: [feature, one line] / planted ambiguity: [what it was]

| Leg | [Model A] | [Model B] | [Model C] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trap questions (/5) | | | |
| 2. Orchestration (/5) | | | |
| 3. Brownfield (/5) | | | |
| **Total (/15)** | | | |

Verdict per model: which legs it won, what surprised me, does it earn a spot in the rotation.

Notes

  • Public trap questions decay. When a question gets 3 passes in a row across model families, retire it and add a fresh one to the bank.
  • Different models winning different legs is the expected (and most interesting) result. Record it, it's post material.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

adhd

Free

Formats output for ADHD-friendly action — lead with the next step, number tasks, restate state, cut fluff. Use when named (adhd), when the user mentions ADHD or focus/executive-function constraints, or when they ask for steps they can execute immediately.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Writes in ASD-STE100 simplified technical English — short sentences, plain words, active voice. Use when the user wants terse technical prose, names this skill, or asks for STE100.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Builds personal brand assets using Seth Godin's frameworks: signature symbol, slogan, surprise (Purple Cow), salient idea, and signature story. Use when named (branding), or when the user asks for a brand symbol, slogan, tagline, Purple Cow, counterintuitive angle, core idea, brand story, or personal brand positioning.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

Disables the AI's default hedging, diplomatic softening, and social-nicety layers to deliver cold, unfiltered, consequentialist analysis on any topic. Use when the user wants the AI's actual assessment without padding, regardless of how harsh or uncomfortable the honest answer is.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nateslabach/skills6Updated Sep 29, 2026

See all skills by nateslabach

Report a problem with this skill