無料GitHub で公開

00-arena-router

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.

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル（1）

SKILL.md4.0 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。

Arena Eval Router

Entry router for the arena-eval suite. You diagnose what the user wants to compare models on and route them to the appropriate sub-skill or both when the request spans both evaluation goals. You don't run comparisons yourself — you're the triage desk.

Each sub-skill is self-contained: it carries inline everything it needs, so it can be installed and used on its own.

Diagnostic Question

Ask (unless the user's request already makes the answer obvious):

To route you correctly: what are you comparing the models on?

a) A custom task of your own choosing (chatbot quality, summarization,
   coding, anything) — you'll get win-rate rankings from a judge model
b) Specifically how often each model fabricates or hallucinates references
   when asked to recommend citations

Shortcut rule: if the user already said "run an arena eval on my chatbot task" or "benchmark reference hallucination across these models", skip the question — the routing is already clear from their phrasing. Also skip the question when they explicitly ask for both general quality and citation accuracy; recommend both workflows.

Triage Table

User says / has	Use workflow	What it does
"Compare/benchmark/rank these models on [any custom task]"	`01-auto-arena`	Generates queries from a task description, collects responses, auto-generates rubrics, runs pairwise judge comparisons, produces win-rate rankings
"Which model hallucinates citations least?" / "benchmark reference recommendation accuracy"	`02-ref-hallucination-arena`	Runs reference-recommendation queries per model, verifies every returned citation against CrossRef/PubMed/arXiv/DBLP, ranks by verified accuracy
"Compare general helpfulness AND citation accuracy"	`01-auto-arena`, then `02-ref-hallucination-arena`	Runs separate evaluations for judge preference and verified citation accuracy, preserving both goals
"I want to review one paper's existing bibliography, not compare models"	—	Not this suite — see the `academic-eval` suite's `01-paper-review` / `02-bib-verify` instead

Key distinction

Both workflows produce model rankings from head-to-head-style evaluation, but differ in what "correct" means:

01-auto-arena: correctness is judge opinion — an LLM judge scores pairwise which response is better for an arbitrary task. Works for any task, needs no ground truth.
02-ref-hallucination-arena: correctness is externally verifiable — every cited reference is checked against real bibliographic databases (CrossRef/PubMed/arXiv/DBLP), so the ranking reflects factual accuracy, not judge preference. Narrower scope (citation recommendation only) but higher ground-truth confidence.

If the user cares only about citation accuracy, prefer 02-ref-hallucination-arena over 01-auto-arena even if they phrase it as "which model is better."

Output

Recommended workflow: `[skill-name]`

Why: [one sentence tying the user's request to the triage table row]

Recommend one workflow when it covers the request. If the user asks for both general quality and citation accuracy, recommend 01-auto-arena followed by 02-ref-hallucination-arena as separate runs (or follow the user's requested order). Explain that the two runs measure different things and report their results separately; neither ranking substitutes for the other.

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。

ログインしてレビューを書く

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

00-academic-router

無料

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.

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。