advanced-evaluation

from shipshitdev/library

Claude, Cursor, Codex skills and commands

3 stars0 forksUpdated Jan 25, 2026
npx skills add https://github.com/shipshitdev/library --skill advanced-evaluation

SKILL.md

Advanced Evaluation

LLM-as-a-Judge techniques for evaluating AI outputs. Not a single technique but a family of approaches - choosing the right one and mitigating biases is the core competency.

When to Activate

  • Building automated evaluation pipelines for LLM outputs
  • Comparing multiple model responses to select the best one
  • Establishing consistent quality standards
  • Debugging inconsistent evaluation results
  • Designing A/B tests for prompt or model changes
  • Creating rubrics for human or automated evaluation

Core Concepts

Evaluation Taxonomy

Direct Scoring: Single LLM rates one response on a defined scale.

  • Best for: Objective criteria (factual accuracy, instruction following, toxicity)
  • Reliability: Moderate to high for well-defined criteria

Pairwise Comparison: LLM compares two responses and selects better one.

  • Best for: Subjective preferences (tone, style, persuasiveness)
  • Reliability: Higher than direct scoring for preferences

Known Biases

BiasDescriptionMitigation
PositionFirst-position preferenceSwap positions, check consistency
LengthLonger = higher scoresExplicit prompting, length-normalized scoring
Self-EnhancementModels rate own outputs higherUse different model for evaluation
VerbosityUnnecessary detail rated higherCriteria-specific rubrics
AuthorityConfident tone rated higherRequire evidence citation

Decision Framework

Is there an objective ground truth?
├── Yes → Direct Scoring (factual accuracy, format compliance)
└── No → Pairwise Comparison (tone, style, creativity)

Quick Reference

Direct Scoring Requirements

  1. Clear criteria definitions
  2. Calibrated scale (1-5 recommended)
  3. Chain-of-thought: justification BEFORE score (improves reliability 15-25%)

Pairwise Comparison Protocol

  1. First pass: A in first position
  2. Second pass: B in first position (swap)
  3. Consistency check: If passes disagree → TIE
  4. Final verdict: Consistent winner with averaged confidence

Rubric Components

  • Level descriptions with clear boundaries
  • Observable characteristics per level
  • Edge case guidance
  • Strictness calibration (lenient/balanced/strict)

Integration

Works with:

  • context-fundamentals - Effective context structure
  • tool-design - Evaluation tool schemas
  • evaluation (foundational) - Core evaluation concepts

For detailed implementation patterns, prompt templates, examples, and metrics: references/full-guide.md

See also: references/implementation-patterns.md, references/bias-mitigation.md, references/metrics-guide.md

Repository Stats

Stars3
Forks0