Skip to content
Back to skills

Eval

ASecurity

Evaluate and rank agent results by metric or LLM judge for an AgentHub

  • 6 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 10, 2026
toolspythongobashgit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 10, 2026

npx -y skills add JantonioFC/skillsbank --skill eval --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Eval?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Eval
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/jantoniofc-eval/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jantoniofc-eval)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: eval
description: Evaluate and rank agent results by metric or LLM judge for an AgentHub
  session.
command: /hub:eval
risk: safe
source: community
license: MIT
---
# /hub:eval — Evaluate Agent Results

Rank all agent results for a session. Supports metric-based evaluation (run a command), LLM judge (compare diffs), or hybrid.

## Usage

```
/hub:eval                           # Eval latest session using configured criteria
/hub:eval 20260317-143022           # Eval specific session
/hub:eval --judge                   # Force LLM judge mode (ignore metric config)
```

## What It Does

### Metric Mode (eval command configured)

Run the evaluation command in each agent's worktree:

```bash
python {skill_path}/scripts/result_ranker.py \
  --session {session-id} \
  --eval-cmd "{eval_cmd}" \
  --metric {metric} --direction {direction}
```

Output:
```
RANK  AGENT       METRIC      DELTA      FILES
1     agent-2     142ms       -38ms      2
2     agent-1     165ms       -15ms      3
3     agent-3     190ms       +10ms      1

Winner: agent-2 (142ms)
```

### LLM Judge Mode (no eval command, or --judge flag)

For each agent:
1. Get the diff: `git diff {base_branch}...{agent_branch}`
2. Read the agent's result post from `.agenthub/board/results/agent-{i}-result.md`
3. Compare all diffs and rank by:
   - **Correctness** — Does it solve the task?
   - **Simplicity** — Fewer lines changed is better (when equal correctness)
   - **Quality** — Clean execution, good structure, no regressions

Present rankings with justification.

Example LLM judge output for a content task:
```
RANK  AGENT    VERDICT                               WORD COUNT
1     agent-1  Strong narrative, clear CTA            1480
2     agent-3  Good data points, weak intro           1520
3     agent-2  Generic tone, no differentiation       1350

Winner: agent-1 (strongest narrative arc and call-to-action)
```

### Hybrid Mode

1. Run metric evaluation first
2. If top agents are within 10% of each other, use LLM judge to break ties
3. Present both metric and qualitative rankings

## After Eval

1. Update session state:
```bash
python {skill_path}/scripts/session_manager.py --update {session-id} --state evaluating
```

2. Tell the user:
   - Ranked results with winner highlighted
   - Next step: `/hub:merge` to merge the winner
   - Or `/hub:merge {session-id} --agent {winner}` to be explicit

## When to Use

Evaluate and rank agent results by metric or LLM judge for an AgentHub session.

Covers: /hub:eval — Evaluate Agent Results, What It Does, Metric Mode (eval command configured), LLM Judge Mode (no eval command, or --judge flag), Hybrid Mode.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…