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 fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall --skill agentic-evalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_MallWrote 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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/agentic-eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/agentic-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/agentic-eval/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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/agentic-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/agentic-eval.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01298 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00649 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00260 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
agentic-eval 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 9d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 184 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agentic Evaluation Patterns
Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.
Overview
Evaluation patterns enable agents to assess and improve their own outputs, moving beyond single-shot generation to iterative refinement loops.
Generate → Evaluate → Critique → Refine → Output
↑ │
└──────────────────────────────┘
When to Use
- Quality-critical generation: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy
- Tasks with clear evaluation criteria: Defined success metrics exist
- Content requiring specific standards: Style guides, compliance, formatting
Pattern 1: Basic Reflection
Agent evaluates and improves its own output through self-critique.
def reflect_and_refine(task: str, criteria: list[str], max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
"""Generate with reflection loop."""
output = llm(f"Complete this task:\n{task}")
for i in range(max_iterations):
# Self-critique
critique = llm(f"""
Evaluate this output against criteria: {criteria}
Output: {output}
Rate each: PASS/FAIL with feedback as JSON.
""")
critique_data = json.loads(critique)
all_pass = all(c["status"] == "PASS" for c in critique_data.values())
if all_pass:
return output
# Refine based on critique
failed = {k: v["feedback"] for k, v in critique_data.items() if v["status"] == "FAIL"}
output = llm(f"Improve to address: {failed}\nOriginal: {output}")
return output
Key insight: Use structured JSON output for reliable parsing of critique results.
Pattern 2: Evaluator-Optimizer
Separate generation and evaluation into distinct components for clearer responsibilities.
class EvaluatorOptimizer:
def __init__(self, score_threshold: float = 0.8):
self.score_threshold = score_threshold
def generate(self, task: str) -> str:
return llm(f"Complete: {task}")
def evaluate(self, output: str, task: str) -> dict:
return json.loads(llm(f"""
Evaluate output for task: {task}
Output: {output}
Return JSON: {{"overall_score": 0-1, "dimensions": {{"accuracy": ..., "clarity": ...}}}}
"""))
def optimize(self, output: str, feedback: dict) -> str:
return llm(f"Improve based on feedback: {feedback}\nOutput: {output}")
def run(self, task: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
output = self.generate(task)
for _ in range(max_iterations):
evaluation = self.evaluate(output, task)
if evaluation["overall_score"] >= self.score_threshold:
break
output = self.optimize(output, evaluation)
return output
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 184 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 6a8f6f771f51
agentic-eval is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,298 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
qa
Systematic QA testing of a web application: diff-aware, tiered, with fix-and-verify loop.
generate-tests
Generate comprehensive tests for specified code.
code-qualities-assessment
Assess code maintainability through 5 foundational qualities (cohesion, coupling, encapsulation, testability, non-redundancy) with quantifiable scoring rubrics. Works at method/class/module levels across multiple languages. Produces markdown reports with remediation guidance. Use when you ask to "assess…
pr-quality-qa
Judge a local diff on test coverage, error handling, and whether the tests would fail if the code regressed, and return a PASS/WARN/CRITICALFAIL verdict. Use when you say qa review my changes, run the qa gate, or are these tests good enough. Do NOT use to run all six axes (use pr-quality-all), and do NOT use to write…
api-integration-test
Create, maintain, and run gated Go integration tests for internal APIs and service-to-service clients (HTTP/gRPC). Use for endpoint verification, contract checks with real runtime config, opt-in execution, timeout/retry safety, and integration failure triage in Go services.
go-test-review
Review Go test code for quality including table-driven tests, t.Helper usage, assertion completeness, boundary cases, benchmarks, fuzz tests, and coverage targets. Trigger when PR contains test.go files, test helpers, httptest usage, testing.B, testing.F, or testdata directories. Use for test-quality focused review.