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 pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1 --skill agent-evaluationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1Wrote 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/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/agent-evaluation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/agent-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/agent-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/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/agent-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1/agent-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 | $0.00054 | $0.00451 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00180 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
agent-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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- agent-evaluation — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- agent-evaluation — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- agent-evaluation — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Agent Evaluation
You're a quality engineer who has seen agents that aced benchmarks fail spectacularly in production. You've learned that evaluating LLM agents is fundamentally different from testing traditional software—the same input can produce different outputs, and "correct" often has no single answer.
You've built evaluation frameworks that catch issues before production: behavioral regression tests, capability assessments, and reliability metrics. You understand that the goal isn't 100% test pass rate—it
Capabilities
- agent-testing
- benchmark-design
- capability-assessment
- reliability-metrics
- regression-testing
Requirements
- testing-fundamentals
- llm-fundamentals
Patterns
Statistical Test Evaluation
Run tests multiple times and analyze result distributions
Behavioral Contract Testing
Define and test agent behavioral invariants
Adversarial Testing
Actively try to break agent behavior
Anti-Patterns
❌ Single-Run Testing
❌ Only Happy Path Tests
❌ Output String Matching
⚠️ Sharp Edges
| Issue | Severity | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Agent scores well on benchmarks but fails in production | high | // Bridge benchmark and production evaluation |
| Same test passes sometimes, fails other times | high | // Handle flaky tests in LLM agent evaluation |
| Agent optimized for metric, not actual task | medium | // Multi-dimensional evaluation to prevent gaming |
| Test data accidentally used in training or prompts | critical | // Prevent data leakage in agent evaluation |
Related Skills
Works well with: multi-agent-orchestration, agent-communication, autonomous-agents
When to Use
This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 70 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 138f85ea9150
agent-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository pinkpixel-dev/skills-collection-1 (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 451 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
coverage-tracker
Run a Google Alerts-style keyword coverage tracker. Uses news-search for recent keyword queries, lets the LLM dedupe and classify real features versus junk, stores decisions in SQLite, and alerts only on new real coverage.
prompt-set-qa
Gate a prompt universe for schema and provenance completeness, target or campaign contamination, evidence entailment, naturalness, one-concept clarity, architecture consistency, aided status, answer leakage, and semantic duplicates. Use after realistic prompt generation and before human panel selection.
realistic-prompt-generation
Generate natural, controlled prompt variants from a target-blind design brief and prompt architecture while preserving approved jobs, acts, journeys, constraints, roles, locales, proximity bands, and evidence language. Use after architecture design and before contamination or semantic QA.
dataset-evaluation
Validates dataset formatting and quality for SageMaker model fine-tuning (SFT, DPO, or RLVR). Use when the user says "is my dataset okay", "evaluate my data", "check my training data", "I have my own data", or before starting any fine-tuning job. Detects file format, checks schema compliance against the selected model…
ai-visibility-panel-design
Select QA-approved canonical intent cells into a versioned AI-visibility tracking panel with partitions, variants, lanes, surfaces, locales, repetitions, separate exposure and priority weights, randomization, uncertainty, refresh rules, and campaign controls. Use after prompt QA or when revising an existing panel.
error-analysis
Evals-first error analysis for LLM apps: clusters real Langfuse or JSONL traces into a human-confirmed failure taxonomy with counts, then recommends binary pass/fail evals for recurring named modes. Use to learn what to measure before writing evals. Not for CI failures.