본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

01-graders-and-pipeline

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

연동 도구OpenAI

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(5)

  • SKILL.md5.2 KB
  • analyzer.md9.0 KB
  • generator.md7.9 KB
  • graders.md15.9 KB
  • pipeline.md8.7 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

OpenJudge Skill

Build evaluation pipelines for LLM applications using the openjudge library.

When to Use This Skill

  • User wants to evaluate LLM output quality (correctness, relevance, hallucination, etc.)
  • User wants to compare two or more models and rank them
  • User wants to design a scoring rubric and automate evaluation
  • User wants to analyze evaluation results statistically
  • User wants to build a reward model or quality filter

Sub-documents — Read When Relevant

TopicFileRead when…
Grader selection & configurationgraders.mdUser needs to pick or configure an evaluator
Batch evaluation pipelinepipeline.mdUser needs to run evaluation over a dataset
Auto-generate graders from datagenerator.mdNo rubric yet; generate from labeled examples
Analyze & compare resultsanalyzer.mdUser wants win rates, statistics, or metrics

Read the relevant sub-document before writing any code.

Install

pip install py-openjudge

Architecture Overview

Dataset (List[dict])
    │
    ▼
GradingRunner                    ← orchestrates everything
    │
    ├─► Grader A ──► EvaluationStrategy ──► _aevaluate() ──► GraderScore / GraderRank
    ├─► Grader B ──► EvaluationStrategy ──► _aevaluate() ──► GraderScore / GraderRank
    └─► Grader C ...
    │
    ├─► Aggregator (optional)    ← combine multiple grader scores into one
    │
    └─► RunnerResult             ← {grader_name: [GraderScore, ...]}
            │
            ▼
        Analyzer                 ← statistics, win rates, validation metrics

5-Minute Quick Start

Evaluate responses for correctness using a built-in grader:

import asyncio
from openjudge.models.openai_chat_model import OpenAIChatModel
from openjudge.graders.common.correctness import CorrectnessGrader
from openjudge.runner.grading_runner import GradingRunner

# 1. Configure the judge model (OpenAI-compatible endpoint)
model = OpenAIChatModel(
    model="qwen-plus",
    api_key="sk-xxx",
    base_url="https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1",
)

# 2. Instantiate a grader
grader = CorrectnessGrader(model=model)

# 3. Prepare dataset
dataset = [
    {
        "query": "What is the capital of France?",
        "response": "Paris is the capital of France.",
        "reference_response": "Paris.",
    },
    {
        "query": "What is 2 + 2?",
        "response": "The answer is five.",
        "reference_response": "4.",
    },
]

# 4. Run evaluation
async def main():
    runner = GradingRunner(
        grader_configs={"correctness": grader},
        max_concurrency=8,
    )
    results = await runner.arun(dataset)

    for i, result in enumerate(results["correctness"]):
        print(f"[{i}] score={result.score}  reason={result.reason}")

asyncio.run(main())

Expected output:

[0] score=5  reason=The response accurately states Paris as capital...
[1] score=1  reason=The response gives the wrong answer (five vs 4)...

Key Data Types

TypeDescription
GraderScorePointwise result: .score (float), .reason (str), .metadata (dict)
GraderRankListwise result: .rank (List[int]), .reason (str), .metadata (dict)
GraderErrorError during evaluation: .error (str), .reason (str)
RunnerResultDict[str, List[GraderResult]] — keyed by grader name

Result Handling Pattern

from openjudge.graders.schema import GraderScore, GraderRank, GraderError

for grader_name, grader_results in results.items():
    for i, result in enumerate(grader_results):
        if isinstance(result, GraderScore):
            print(f"{grader_name}[{i}]: score={result.score}")
        elif isinstance(result, GraderRank):
            print(f"{grader_name}[{i}]: rank={result.rank}")
        elif isinstance(result, GraderError):
            print(f"{grader_name}[{i}]: ERROR — {result.error}")

Model Configuration

All LLM-based graders accept either a BaseChatModel instance or a dict config:

# Option A: instance
from openjudge.models.openai_chat_model import OpenAIChatModel
model = OpenAIChatModel(model="gpt-4o", api_key="sk-...")

# Option B: dict (auto-creates OpenAIChatModel)
model_cfg = {"model": "gpt-4o", "api_key": "sk-..."}
grader = CorrectnessGrader(model=model_cfg)

# OpenAI-compatible endpoints (DashScope / local / etc.)
model = OpenAIChatModel(
    model="qwen-plus",
    api_key="sk-xxx",
    base_url="https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1",
)

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Use when the user wants help with academic papers or citations but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — reviewing a paper, checking a BibTeX file for fake references, or benchmarking multiple LLMs on reference-recommendation accuracy. Also use when the user mentions paper review, peer review, BibTeX verification, citation checking, reference hallucination, or academic literature accuracy and hasn't specified which of those three tasks they mean. This skill is the entry router for the academic-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question then routes to the right sub-skill.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge8872026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Use when the user wants to compare or benchmark multiple LLMs/agents arena-style but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — a general-purpose win-rate comparison on a custom task, or a benchmark specifically about reference/citation hallucination rate. Also use when the user mentions model arena, agent arena, pairwise model comparison, win-rate ranking, or comparing models on a task and hasn't specified whether that task is generic or about citation accuracy. This skill is the entry router for the arena-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question when needed, then recommends the workflow or workflows needed to cover the request.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge8872026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Automatically evaluate and compare multiple AI models or agents without pre-existing test data. Generates test queries from a task description, collects responses from all target endpoints, auto-generates evaluation rubrics, runs pairwise comparisons via a judge model, and produces win-rate rankings with reports and charts. Supports checkpoint resume, incremental endpoint addition, and judge model hot-swap. Use when the user asks to compare, benchmark, or rank multiple models or agents on a custom task, or run an arena-style evaluation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge8872026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Review academic papers for correctness, quality, and novelty using OpenJudge's multi-stage pipeline. Supports PDF files and LaTeX source packages (.tar.gz/.zip). Covers 10 disciplines: cs, medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, economics, psychology, environmental_science, mathematics, social_sciences. Use when the user asks to review, evaluate, critique, or assess a research paper, check references, or verify a BibTeX file.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge8872026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Verify a BibTeX file for hallucinated or fabricated references by cross-checking every entry against CrossRef, arXiv, and DBLP. Reports each reference as verified, suspect, or not found, with field-level mismatch details (title, authors, year, DOI). Use when the user wants to check a .bib file for fake citations, validate references in a paper, or audit bibliography entries for accuracy.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge8872026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge8872026년 10월 20일 업데이트

agentscope-ai의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고