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 skills add ckorhonen/claude-skills --skill llm-evaluationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ckorhonen/claude-skillsWrote 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/ckorhonen/claude-skills/llm-evaluation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ckorhonen/claude-skills/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckorhonen/claude-skills/llm-evaluation/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ckorhonen/claude-skills/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckorhonen/claude-skills/llm-evaluation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00087 | $0.05125 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.02563 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.01025 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00513 |
Grade A, and why
llm-evaluation scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 12d 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
commit = subprocess.check_output(["git", "rev-parse", "HEAD"]).decode().strip() How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 685 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
- Evaluating RAG pipeline quality (retrieval + generation)
- Measuring agentic task success rates
- Testing structured output schema compliance
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. This is the dominant approach in 2025/2026 for open-ended tasks.
Approaches:
- Pointwise: Score individual responses (0-10 Likert scales)
- Pairwise: Compare two responses (preferred by MT-Bench, Chatbot Arena)
- Reference-based: Compare to gold standard answer
- Reference-free: Judge without ground truth (good for creative/open-ended tasks)
- Rubric-based: Judge against explicit criteria (best for consistency)
- Constitutional: Check against a set of principles or rules
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 685 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A fa3de88c018c
llm-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository ckorhonen/claude-skills (14 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 5,125 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
llm-as-judge-evaluation
Evaluate LLM outputs using frontier models as judges. Use for pairwise model comparison, quality scoring with custom rubrics, and automated evaluation pipelines. Covers position bias mitigation, statistical significance, and generating preference data for DPO/RLHF.
autoresearch
Autonomous goal-directed iteration loop that continuously improves prompts, templates, configs, or code. Two evaluation modes — deterministic (eval.py with proxy heuristics) or AI judge (LLM rubric scoring). Uses four-way separation in both modes. Inspired by Karpathy's autoresearch.
cli-eval
Create and run evaluation suites, watch live benchmark progress, view scorecards, compare model performance, and integrate eval runs with CI workflows from the CLI.
model-merging
Merge multiple fine-tuned models using mergekit to combine capabilities without retraining. Use when creating specialized models by blending domain-specific expertise (math + coding + chat), improving performance beyond single models, or experimenting rapidly with model variants. Covers SLERP, TIES-Merging, DARE, Task…
darwinian-evolver
Evolve prompts/regex/SQL/code with Imbue's evolution loop.
validate
Validate Semantica pipelines, extraction quality, graph schemas, and ontology consistency. Returns structured error/warning checklists. Uses PipelineValidator, PipelineBuilder.validatepipeline(), GraphValidator, and OntologyValidator. Sub-commands: pipeline, step, dependencies, extraction, graph, ontology, performance.