customaize-agent:agent-evaluation

Evaluate Claude Code agent outputs with structured rubrics and LLM-as-judge scoring.

Updated Apr 6, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/luicabref97/sushi-jungle-web --skill customaize-agent-agent-evaluation-luicabref97
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: customaize-agent:agent-evaluation
Source: https://github.com/luicabref97/sushi-jungle-web/tree/main/.agents/skills/customaize-agent-agent-evaluation
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/luicabref97/sushi-jungle-web --skill customaize-agent-agent-evaluation-luicabref97

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Provides structured methods to evaluate, compare, and improve Claude Code agent prompts, commands, and multi-step agent behaviors so teams can detect regressions, measure improvements, and validate context engineering choices.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Multi-dimensional rubrics for assessing instruction following, completeness, tool efficiency, reasoning quality, and coherence with weighted scoring.
  • LLM-as-judge and human evaluation patterns including direct scoring, pairwise comparison with position-swap mitigation, and confidence calibration.
  • Bias mitigation and metric guidance that addresses position bias, length bias, and self-enhancement through protocols and prompt design.
  • Use Case: Compare two prompt variations across simple to very complex test sets, compute weighted scores, surface failure modes, and propose targeted prompt or context changes.

Quick Start

Run a rubric-based LLM-as-judge evaluation of an agent run, request per-criterion scores with evidence, and return a weighted overall score plus a single prioritized improvement suggestion.

Frequently Asked Questions about customaize-agent:agent-evaluation

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I evaluate and compare Claude Code agent prompts to detect regressions?

Mitigate position and length bias in LLM evaluation using position swapping and length normalization protocols. These bias mitigation strategies ensure fair pairwise comparisons and reliable direct-scoring when evaluating agent outputs.

What is the best way to score multi-step agent behaviors across different criteria?

Run a rubric-based LLM-as-judge evaluation of an agent run by requesting per-criterion scores with evidence. Return a weighted overall score plus a single prioritized improvement suggestion to refine agent prompts and context.

How does pairwise comparison with position swapping work for LLM evaluation?

Mitigate position and length bias in LLM evaluation using position swapping and length normalization protocols. These bias mitigation strategies ensure fair pairwise comparisons and reliable direct-scoring when evaluating agent outputs.

How do I compute weighted multi-criteria scores for agent evaluation?

Score multi-step agent behaviors by applying multi-dimensional rubrics that assess instruction following, tool efficiency, and reasoning quality. Compute weighted multi-criteria scores with confidence calibration to quantify overall agent performance.

Can I use structured rubrics to test prompt variations for complex agent tasks?

Run a rubric-based LLM-as-judge evaluation of an agent run by requesting per-criterion scores with evidence. Return a weighted overall score plus a single prioritized improvement suggestion to refine agent prompts and context.