本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

coval-eval-audit

Audit an existing Coval evaluation setup for coverage, misleading scores, missing evidence, judge validation and execution risk. Read-only; use when inheriting an eval or deciding whether its results support a release decision.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 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。

Audit a Coval evaluation

Inspect what the customer actually ran and what decision those results support. Stay read-only unless they separately request a concrete repair or test.

Collect the smallest useful evidence

Confirm organization, workspace, API environment, agent, time window and decision. Use explicit resource IDs where available. Start with a recent relevant run, its agent, persona, cases and metrics; sample completed, failed and unscored conversations. Don't download the whole account or launch a run to fill a gap.

Discover installed commands with coval --agent agent manifest and resource context. Common reads:

coval --agent runs get <run-id>
coval --agent agents get <agent-id>
coval --agent personas get <persona-id>
coval --agent test-sets get <test-set-id>
coval --agent test-cases list --test-set-id <test-set-id> --page-size 100
coval --agent simulated-conversations list --run-id <run-id> --page-size 100
coval --agent simulated-conversations get <simulation-id>
coval --agent simulated-conversations metrics <simulation-id>
coval --agent metrics get <metric-id>

Check ok, errors and pagination. Some CLI versions return only the first page without its token. For complete coverage, use the published /v1/openapi schemas and public API pagination (page_token from next_page_token), retaining the original filter and workspace header. Never infer missing resources from a failed read, a truncated page or an unsearched workspace. If evidence is bounded, state the inspected sample and leave completeness unknown.

Inspect six decision risks

AreaInspectConsequence / next step
Evaluation objectiveRequirement, pass rule and origin of each key criterionGeneric sentiment/tone alone cannot establish task success. Use configure-metrics for a concrete criterion.
Scenario coverageActual inputs/expectations, known incidents, source distribution, duplicate cases, language and persona choicesA generated happy-path suite may miss observed failures. Use coval-discover-failures or build-test-suite.
Execution validityRequested vs observed conversations; individual statuses; both transcript speakers; recording availability; test scenario actually exercisedA completed run can contain unusable calls. Separate connection, simulator, provider and agent failures; do not count unknowns as passes.
Measurement validityMetric output status, value, units, polarity, criteria subvalues, evidence source, metric versionNull/skipped/failed is not zero or pass. A composite average can hide one mandatory failed criterion. Transcript claims don't prove a tool side effect.
Human calibrationHuman label provenance, disagreements, both classes, prompt examples, dev/test separation and version matchingAgreement on tuned examples is development evidence. Use coval-calibrate-metric; missing labels means unvalidated, not a bad judge by assertion.
Comparison and costExact case IDs/versions, persona/config/model changes, repeats, missing pairs, runtime/spend and rerun authorizationConfounded deltas and small samples cannot establish improvement. Use coval-compare-runs; propose a bounded test, never an automatic hill-climb.

Read actual transcript excerpts and metric explanations for consequential findings. For audio claims, listen to the relevant recording segments. For tool or retrieval claims, inspect correlated traces and returned evidence; missing instrumentation is an observability gap, not proof a tool never ran.

Numerical latency, counts and calibrated categorical metrics are legitimate. Do not force everything into binary judging. Prefer deterministic checks for exact constraints; require an explicit decision threshold when the result is used as a release gate. Safety-critical requirements can justify tests before any naturally occurring failure is observed.

Report

For each material finding, provide severity relative to the customer's decision, observed evidence and resource IDs, impact, smallest fix, and how to verify it. Mark each inspected area supported, problem observed, or unknown. Keep hypotheses separate from confirmed findings. Do not invent a numeric readiness score.

Finish with:

  • What was inspected (counts, scope, window, versions and missing evidence).
  • Whether the evidence supports the stated decision, and why.
  • At most three next actions, ordered by expected learning per cost.

Use app URLs verified from the user's org/workspace context or returned by Coval. Do not expose credentials, signed recording URLs, private metadata or full customer transcripts in a shareable report. No resource mutations, notifications, scheduled monitoring or paid evaluations are part of this audit.

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Analyze a Coval accent testing report from runs across different speaker accents. Use when a user provides a Coval report URL, report export, run IDs, screenshots, or metric summary and wants evidence-backed next steps such as prompt changes, STT/confirmation adjustments, accent-robust routing, or expanded accent coverage.

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。

coval-ai/coval-external-skills32026年9月16日 更新

Analyze a Coval adversarial / red-team testing report and turn it into an agent-hardening plan. Use when a user provides a Coval report URL, report export, run IDs, screenshots, or a per-scenario scorecard from an adversarial sweep and wants evidence-backed next steps such as prompt/guardrail changes, refusal hardening, verification fixes, escalation routing, or expanded attack coverage.

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。

coval-ai/coval-external-skills32026年9月16日 更新

Analyze a Coval audio-quality testing report from runs across different voice, speaking-style, volume, interruption, and background-noise scenarios. Use when a user provides a Coval report URL, report export, run IDs, screenshots, or metric summary and wants evidence-backed next steps such as prompt changes, tool handling fixes, STT/TTS adjustments, trace setup, or expanded audio-scenario coverage.

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。

coval-ai/coval-external-skills32026年9月16日 更新

Build or improve a Coval dashboard with metric visualizations backed by real data. Creates new dashboards from scratch or rebuilds existing ones by analyzing usage patterns, metric frequency, and data density. Use when user says "create a dashboard", "build a dashboard", "improve my dashboard", "add widgets", "visualize my metrics", "make a performance dashboard", or "dashboard for my runs".

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。

coval-ai/coval-external-skills32026年9月16日 更新

Build a compact Coval test set from product requirements, observed conversation failures or a coverage gap. Design realistic scenarios with separate expected behaviors, provenance and controlled voice/persona variation.

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。

coval-ai/coval-external-skills32026年9月16日 更新

Select and configure a Coval metric for a concrete product criterion, choosing transcript, audio, trace or deterministic evidence and testing the result. Use for metric creation or scoring design, not for final human calibration.

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。

coval-ai/coval-external-skills32026年9月16日 更新

coval-ai のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する