agent-eval-workflow

A workflow for evaluating an AI agent from start to finish. It covers setting up tests, defining measurable criteria, checking evaluation configurations, reading results, and repeating improvements.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to design agent evaluations, measure real behavior, audit evaluation settings, interpret results, and run improvement cycles.
Why use it?
It replaces vague judgments with testable claims and evidence about what an agent does correctly or incorrectly.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/googlecloudplatform/professional-services/agent-eval-workflow
Any agent
npx skills add GoogleCloudPlatform/professional-services --skill agent-eval-workflow
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/professional-services

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 123 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,732 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00123 $0.02732
Opus 5 $0.00062 $0.01366
Sonnet 5 $0.00025 $0.00546
Haiku 4.5 $0.00012 $0.00273

Measured 2d ago against content hash 1dd4c8053fdd, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

agent-eval-workflow 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 2d 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.

tools/agent-eval/skills/agent-eval-workflow/SKILL.md · 266 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 266 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Agent evaluation: the process

Commands change. The process does not. This skill is about how to evaluate an agent well — the reasoning that stays true whether you drive it with agent-eval, agents-cli eval, or whatever replaces them.

The loop: Hypothesize. Test. Validate.

State a falsifiable claim about the agent, write metrics that could prove you wrong, run them, and let the results — not your intuition — decide what to fix.


1. Start from a hypothesis, not from "add some metrics"

A metric exists to settle an argument. Before generating anything, answer:

  • What do I believe this agent gets wrong?
  • What observable evidence would prove that?
  • What would prove me wrong?

Read the agent's own instructions and tool code first. Stated rules are testable claims — "always confirm before deleting", "never approve above 10%", "always cite a source". Those sentences convert directly into criteria.

When a generator asks what to focus on, give it the hypothesis in plain language naming real tools and thresholds. Vague guidance produces vague rubrics.

Good: "The agent must never call approve_discount above 10%; it should route larger requests to sync_ask_for_approval instead of being rejected and retrying."

Weak: "Test discount handling."

Prefer binary rubrics (0/1). LLM judges have poor inter-rater reliability on 1–5 scales. Several sharp binary metrics beat one fuzzy graded one, and the pass rate across a dataset gives you a continuous score with better statistics.


2. Make the agent measurable before measuring harder

A judge reading prose is fuzzy. A state variable written by the tool itself is deterministic. If a tool already makes a decision, record it:

def approve_discount(discount_type: str, value: float, reason: str,
                     tool_context: ToolContext) -> dict:
    if value > MAX_DISCOUNT_RATE:
        tool_context.state["discount_status"] = "rejected"   # hard evidence
        return {"status": "rejected", "message": "discount too large."}
    tool_context.state["discount_status"] = "approved"
    return {"status": "ok"}

Read the full file on GitHub · 266 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 266 lines · 123 tokens per session scan A 1dd4c8053fdd

Subscribe to this mod's changes

agent-eval-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository GoogleCloudPlatform/professional-services (3,065 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 123 tokens to every session and 2,732 once invoked, about $0.0006 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

review-prs

Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…

googleapis/mcp-toolbox · 162 tokens

fix-failing-tests

Diagnose a failing test in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo and land a fix by reasoning from the actual error: read the failure, reproduce it, shrink it until the cause is forced into the open, then fix the cause. Use this whenever a test or CI job is red, a build breaks after a change, many packages fail at once, or a…

googleapis/mcp-toolbox · 87 tokens

stale-sweep

Sweep the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo for issues and PRs with no real activity in N days (default 60), sort each by whose silence it is (the author's, ours, or nobody's), and draft the nudge or close comment. Use whenever a maintainer asks for a stale sweep, backlog cleanup, or an SLO check, e.g. "stale sweep", "find…

googleapis/mcp-toolbox · 159 tokens

triage-issues

Triage GitHub issues in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo: propose the correct labels (type / priority / product / status), check for duplicates, verify a bug has enough info to act on, and draft a triage comment. Use whenever a maintainer asks you to triage, label, categorize, prioritize, or "look at" an issue (or a…

googleapis/mcp-toolbox · 164 tokens

data-parity

Validate that two tables or query results are identical — or diagnose exactly how they differ. Discover schema, identify keys, profile cheaply, then diff. Use for migration validation, ETL regression, and query refactor verification.

AltimateAI/altimate-code · 48 tokens

dbt-develop

REQUIRED before writing or modifying ANY dbt model. Invoke this skill FIRST whenever a task says "create", "build", "add", "modify", "update", "fix", or "refactor" a dbt model, staging file, mart, incremental, or snapshot. Skipping this skill is the leading cause of silent-correctness bugs — models that compile and…

AltimateAI/altimate-code · 294 tokens