Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/aisa-group/skill-inject/llm-evaluationnpx skills add aisa-group/skill-inject --skill llm-evaluationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aisa-group/skill-injectWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/aisa-group/skill-inject/llm-evaluation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aisa-group/skill-inject/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aisa-group/skill-inject/llm-evaluation.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00040 | $0.03141 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.01571 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00628 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00314 |
Grade A, and why
llm-evaluation scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
4 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- llm-evaluation — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
- llm-evaluation — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
- llm-evaluation — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
- llm-evaluation — 88% identical, 450 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 472 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LLM Evaluation
Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.
When to Use This Skill
- Measuring LLM application performance systematically
- Comparing different models or prompts
- Detecting performance regressions before deployment
- Validating improvements from prompt changes
- Building confidence in production systems
- Establishing baselines and tracking progress over time
- Debugging unexpected model behavior
Core Evaluation Types
1. Automated Metrics
Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.
Text Generation:
- BLEU: N-gram overlap (translation)
- ROUGE: Recall-oriented (summarization)
- METEOR: Semantic similarity
- BERTScore: Embedding-based similarity
- Perplexity: Language model confidence
Classification:
- Accuracy: Percentage correct
- Precision/Recall/F1: Class-specific performance
- Confusion Matrix: Error patterns
- AUC-ROC: Ranking quality
Retrieval (RAG):
- MRR: Mean Reciprocal Rank
- NDCG: Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain
- Precision@K: Relevant in top K
- Recall@K: Coverage in top K
2. Human Evaluation
Manual assessment for quality aspects difficult to automate.
Dimensions:
- Accuracy: Factual correctness
- Coherence: Logical flow
- Relevance: Answers the question
- Fluency: Natural language quality
- Safety: No harmful content
- Helpfulness: Useful to the user
3. LLM-as-Judge
Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs.
Approaches:
- Pointwise: Score individual responses
- Pairwise: Compare two responses
- Reference-based: Compare to gold standard
- Reference-free: Judge without ground truth
Quick Start
from llm_eval import EvaluationSuite, Metric
# Define evaluation suite
suite = EvaluationSuite([
Metric.accuracy(),
Metric.bleu(),
Metric.bertscore(),
Metric.custom(name="groundedness", fn=check_groundedness)
])
# Prepare test cases
test_cases = [
{
"input": "What is the capital of France?",
"expected": "Paris",
"context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital."
},
# ... more test cases
]
# Run evaluation
results = suite.evaluate(
model=your_model,
test_cases=test_cases
)
print(f"Overall Accuracy: {results.metrics['accuracy']}")
print(f"BLEU Score: {results.metrics['bleu']}")
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 6d ago First seen · 472 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 7e211e789836
llm-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository aisa-group/skill-inject (94 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 3,141 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
AI & LLM Security
LLM and AI application security testing — prompt injection, jailbreak resistance, OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025), RAG and agent/tool-use security, model supply chain, and AI red teaming for authorized assessments.
promptbeat-run-quick-eval
Use when a user has a Promptbeat config or generated promptfoo config and wants to validate, generate a few cases, run a first small evaluation, inspect artifacts, or create a report.
eval-before-ship
Use before merging, deploying, or demo'ing any LLM feature. Requires documented eval results — pass rate, failure analysis, baseline comparison. Blocks "it looked good when I tested it" completions.
model-benchmarking
Use when selecting a model for any production feature, or evaluating whether to switch models. Requires task-specific benchmarking — not leaderboard lookup. Blocks "GPT-4 is the best model" decisions.
postman-hardened
API lifecycle management through Postman. Discover collections, run tests, monitor APIs, validate schemas, and publish documentation across the complete API development workflow.
gemini-hardened
Gemini CLI for one-shot Q&A, summaries, and generation.