validate-evaluator

Calibrate an LLM judge against human Pass/Fail labels using TPR/TNR metrics.

1|Updated Jan 7, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/adamatdevops/forge-works --skill validate-evaluator-adamatdevops
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: validate-evaluator
Source: https://github.com/adamatdevops/forge-works/tree/main/.skills/hamelsmu/validate-evaluator
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/adamatdevops/forge-works --skill validate-evaluator-adamatdevops

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It prevents unreliable automated pass/fail judgments by calibrating an LLM judge against human labels and measuring its bias-correctable performance.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • TPR/TNR-based calibration: Optimizes a judge specifically using True Positive Rate and True Negative Rate rather than accuracy or precision/recall.
  • Train/dev/test discipline: Separates few-shot training examples from a development set used for iterative refinement and a held-out test set used once for final measurement.
  • Bias correction for production: Uses Rogan-Gladen correction to estimate true success rates on unlabeled production data.
  • Uncertainty quantification: Produces a bootstrap confidence interval so stakeholders understand estimation reliability.

Quick Start

Calibrate the judge for your binary failure mode by running the steps to split ~100 labeled examples, measure TPR/TNR on dev, and then measure TPR/TNR once on the held-out test set.

Frequently Asked Questions about validate-evaluator

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I calibrate an LLM judge using TPR and TNR metrics?

Calibrate an LLM judge against human binary Pass/Fail labels by measuring and optimizing True Positive Rate and True Negative Rate using disjoint train/dev/test splits and iterative prompt refinement.

How do I correct LLM evaluation bias for production success rates?

Correct LLM evaluation bias for production success rates by applying Rogan-Gladen correction to estimate true success rates on unlabeled production data based on measured judge performance.

What is the best way to measure uncertainty in LLM judge calibration?

Measure uncertainty in LLM judge calibration by generating a bootstrap confidence interval, allowing stakeholders to understand the reliability of the bias-corrected production success rate estimations.

Do I need human-labeled data to evaluate LLM judge performance?

Yes, evaluating LLM judge performance requires human-labeled expert data to serve as the ground truth for calibrating True Positive Rate and True Negative Rate across train, dev, and test splits.

Why use TPR and TNR instead of accuracy for LLM evaluation?

Use TPR and TNR instead of accuracy to optimize an LLM judge for specific binary failure modes, ensuring strict metric rules that prevent unreliable automated pass/fail judgments.

How do I split data for iterative prompt refinement in LLM calibration?

Split approximately 100 labeled examples into disjoint train, development, and test sets; use train for few-shot examples, dev for iterative refinement, and test once for final measurement.