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/nomarj/sigil/llm-evaluationnpx skills add NOMARJ/sigil --skill llm-evaluationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NOMARJ/sigilWrote 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/nomarj/sigil/llm-evaluation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nomarj/sigil/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nomarj/sigil/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 | $0.04426 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.02213 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00885 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00443 |
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 3d 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to llm-evaluation — 450 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 696 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 dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Callable
import numpy as np
@dataclass
class Metric:
name: str
fn: Callable
@staticmethod
def accuracy():
return Metric("accuracy", calculate_accuracy)
@staticmethod
def bleu():
return Metric("bleu", calculate_bleu)
@staticmethod
def bertscore():
return Metric("bertscore", calculate_bertscore)
@staticmethod
def custom(name: str, fn: Callable):
return Metric(name, fn)
class EvaluationSuite:
def __init__(self, metrics: list[Metric]):
self.metrics = metrics
async def evaluate(self, model, test_cases: list[dict]) -> dict:
results = {m.name: [] for m in self.metrics}
for test in test_cases:
prediction = await model.predict(test["input"])
for metric in self.metrics:
score = metric.fn(
prediction=prediction,
reference=test.get("expected"),
context=test.get("context")
)
results[metric.name].append(score)
return {
"metrics": {k: np.mean(v) for k, v in results.items()},
"raw_scores": results
}
# Usage
suite = EvaluationSuite([
Metric.accuracy(),
Metric.bleu(),
Metric.bertscore(),
Metric.custom("groundedness", check_groundedness)
])
test_cases = [
{
"input": "What is the capital of France?",
"expected": "Paris",
"context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital."
},
]
results = await suite.evaluate(model=your_model, test_cases=test_cases)
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 696 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 78d78b66df72
llm-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository NOMARJ/sigil (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 4,426 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to llm-evaluation, differing in 450 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
launching-evals
Run, monitor, analyze, and debug LLM evaluations via nemo-evaluator-launcher. Covers running evaluations, checking status and live progress, debugging failed runs, exporting artifacts and logs, and analyzing results. ALWAYS triggers on mentions of running evaluations, checking progress, debugging failed evals…
creating-online-evaluations
Author continuously-running online evaluations in PostHog AI observability, grounded in real failure modes you've identified. Use when the user wants evaluations that automatically score new generations or whole traces going forward — "create an eval to catch X", "continuously check that responses do Y", "turn these…
meta-eval
Use when the user wants to build an evaluation system for an LLM/agent application but doesn't know where to start — they have traces, prompts, RAG pipelines, or nothing at all. Also use when the user mentions evaluation, eval, benchmarking, testing LLM quality, measuring agent performance, assessing RAG accuracy, or…
recipe-eval-prompt
Compares original and optimized prompts through repeated blind paired execution in git worktrees. Use when evaluating prompt improvement effects or learning prompt engineering through concrete examples.
eval-iterate
Iterates on a failing AI/LLM eval (an L2 suite, a golden-set / judge eval, or any eval gating a PR) until it is green AND confirmed, not just luckily passing once. Classifies the failure as a code bug, an eval-definition bug (stale golden item / criteria drift), judge-drift (silent grader version change), or flaky.…
test-connector
Test a Fivetran connector by running fivetran debug and checking the results. Use when the user wants to validate or run their connector locally.