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 PracticalSwan/agent-skills --skill agentic-evalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PracticalSwan/agent-skillsWrote 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/practicalswan/agent-skills/agentic-eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/agentic-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/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/practicalswan/agent-skills/agentic-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/agentic-eval.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 156 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
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 | $0.00050 | $0.01904 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00762 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00381 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00190 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 235 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 ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 Changed · +48 lines 2255d2a78263
- 1mo ago Changed 2df6d6efc3dd
- 1mo ago Changed b1b2bfe19604
- 1mo ago First seen · 187 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 470b923d249b
agentic-eval is a skill published in the GitHub repository PracticalSwan/agent-skills (21 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,904 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
deepeval
Use when discussing or working with DeepEval (the python AI evaluation framework).
iterative-refinement
Disciplined, measurable iteration for a substantial refinement or investigation: loop against verifiable pass/fail conditions, fan work out to subagents, and keep the main context lean. Use when improving something measurable over repeated cycles (tuning a metric or detector, refactoring against a regression bar)…
hatch3r-browser-verify
Opt-in browser verification skill — spec-run-first Playwright verification (assertions execute in the runner, agent reads only failures), axe-core a11y audits, toHaveScreenshot() regression diffs, E2E test scaffolds, and snapshot-mode exploratory driving. Default ON for UI-affecting agent invocations; disable globally…
hatch3r-feature
End-to-end feature implementation workflow. Covers data model, domain logic, API, and UI as a vertical slice. Use when implementing new features or working on feature request issues.
hatch3r-qa-path
Produces a human-run manual QA test path from a PR, branch diff, or uncommitted working tree — a risk-ordered table of steps, expected results, and automated-coverage references plus a shippability sign-off. Rows are auto-proven via delegated verification sub-agents before emission, so the human walks only what…
hatch3r-a11y-audit
Runs a WCAG AA accessibility audit with findings and fixes across 7 scan categories (keyboard, contrast, ARIA, reduced motion, screen reader, high contrast, automated axe). Use when auditing and remediating accessibility.