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 martineserios/thebrana --skill llm-evaluationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/martineserios/thebranaWrote 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/martineserios/thebrana/llm-evaluation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/martineserios/thebrana/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/martineserios/thebrana/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/martineserios/thebrana/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/martineserios/thebrana/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 | $0.00031 | $0.01257 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00629 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00251 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00126 |
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 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 — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QUARANTINE — Community tier. Patterns here are unvalidated. Read-only tools only. Verify against official docs (Anthropic, LangSmith) before applying to production.
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
Text Generation:
- BLEU: N-gram overlap (translation)
- ROUGE: Recall-oriented (summarization)
- METEOR: Semantic similarity
- BERTScore: Embedding-based similarity
- Perplexity: Language model confidence
Classification:
- Accuracy, Precision/Recall/F1, Confusion Matrix, AUC-ROC
Retrieval (RAG):
- MRR, NDCG, Precision@K, Recall@K
2. LLM-as-Judge
Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs.
Approaches:
- Pointwise: Score individual responses
- Pairwise: Compare two responses (A/B)
- Reference-based: Compare to gold standard
- Reference-free: Judge without ground truth
from anthropic import Anthropic
from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
import json
class QualityRating(BaseModel):
accuracy: int = Field(ge=1, le=10)
helpfulness: int = Field(ge=1, le=10)
clarity: int = Field(ge=1, le=10)
reasoning: str
async def llm_judge_quality(response: str, question: str, context: str = None) -> QualityRating:
client = Anthropic()
prompt = f"""Rate the following response:
Question: {question}
{f'Context: {context}' if context else ''}
Response: {response}
Provide ratings in JSON: {{"accuracy": <1-10>, "helpfulness": <1-10>, "clarity": <1-10>, "reasoning": "<explanation>"}}"""
message = client.messages.create(
model="claude-sonnet-4-6", max_tokens=500,
system="You are an expert evaluator of AI responses.",
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
)
return QualityRating(**json.loads(message.content[0].text))
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 · 148 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A df3dda3d7b0f
llm-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository martineserios/thebrana (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,257 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
llm-evaluator
Evaluate LLM outputs systematically using LLM-as-judge, human evaluation frameworks, and regression testing. Use when assessing model quality, comparing models, or preventing quality regression.
rag-evaluator
Evaluate RAG pipeline quality across faithfulness, relevance, and hallucination metrics. Use when user asks to test, benchmark, or improve a RAG system, or when RAG outputs look wrong.
eval-designer
Use this skill when building evaluation frameworks to measure LLM quality, safety, accuracy, or alignment including test suites, human eval rubrics, automated evals, and metrics design. Not for training or fine-tuning models. Not for dataset curation or benchmark comparison across publicly available models.
generate-rag-dataset
Generate a synthetic evaluation dataset from your RAG knowledge base. Creates diverse Q&A pairs with expected answers and relevant context, ready for LangWatch experiments and platform import. Use when you need test data for your RAG pipeline.
trulens-evaluation-workflow
Systematically evaluate your LLM application with TruLens.
datasets
Generate realistic synthetic evaluation datasets by analyzing the user's codebase, prompts, production traces, and reference materials. Interactive and consultant-style. Asks clarifying questions, proposes a plan, generates a preview for approval, then delivers a complete dataset uploaded to LangWatch. Use when user…