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 stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit --skill llm-evaluationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkitWrote 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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/llm-evaluation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/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/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/llm-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit/llm-evaluation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00047 | $0.06750 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.02700 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01350 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00675 |
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 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 — 990 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LLM Evaluation & Testing
Comprehensive guide to evaluating and testing LLM applications including prompt testing, output validation, hallucination detection, benchmark creation, A/B testing, and quality metrics.
Quick Reference
When to use this skill:
- Testing LLM application outputs
- Validating prompt quality and consistency
- Detecting hallucinations and factual errors
- Creating evaluation benchmarks
- A/B testing prompts or models
- Implementing continuous evaluation (CI/CD)
- Measuring retrieval quality (for RAG)
- Debugging unexpected LLM behavior
Metrics covered:
- Traditional: BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, Perplexity
- LLM-as-Judge: GPT-4 evaluation, rubric-based scoring
- Task-specific: Exact match, F1, accuracy, recall
- Quality: Toxicity, bias, coherence, relevance
Part 1: Evaluation Fundamentals
The LLM Evaluation Challenge
Why LLM evaluation is hard:
- Subjective quality - "Good" output varies by use case
- No single ground truth - Multiple valid answers
- Context-dependent - Same output good/bad in different scenarios
- Expensive to label - Human evaluation doesn't scale
- Adversarial brittleness - Small prompt changes = large output changes
Solution: Multi-layered evaluation
Layer 1: Automated Metrics (fast, scalable)
↓
Layer 2: LLM-as-Judge (flexible, nuanced)
↓
Layer 3: Human Review (gold standard, expensive)
Evaluation Dataset Structure
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import List, Optional
@dataclass
class EvalExample:
"""Single evaluation example."""
input: str # User input / prompt
expected_output: Optional[str] # Gold standard (if exists)
context: Optional[str] # Additional context (for RAG)
metadata: dict # Category, difficulty, etc.
@dataclass
class EvalResult:
"""Evaluation result for one example."""
example_id: str
actual_output: str
scores: dict # {'metric_name': score}
passed: bool
failure_reason: Optional[str]
# Example dataset
eval_dataset = [
EvalExample(
input="What is the capital of France?",
expected_output="Paris",
context=None,
metadata={'category': 'factual', 'difficulty': 'easy'}
),
EvalExample(
input="Explain quantum entanglement",
expected_output=None, # No single answer
context=None,
metadata={'category': 'explanation', 'difficulty': 'hard'}
)
]
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 · 990 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 91b0a42d3807
llm-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefan-jansen/claude-code-toolkit (89 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 6,750 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
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…
methodology
When the bundled claude-api skill resolves in this session, prefer its hillclimb for sweeping model and effort against an existing eval suite; this skill when the suite does not exist yet or its criteria are not yet measurable, before handing the suite to that search. Answers LLM-evaluation design questions from…
tensor-plan-optimizer
Optimize HarnessGym tensor-layout kernelplan.json tasks with a generated MCP server for plan validation, dev/final benchmarking, trace analysis, rollback-safe search, candidate application, history comparison, and experiment ranking. Use when a task asks to minimize bestcycles for benchmark.py or tune tensor…
llm-patterns
LLM application patterns for evaluation, streaming, and testing. Evaluation: LLM-as-judge, multi-dimension scoring, hallucination detection, Langfuse integration. Streaming: SSE, FastAPI endpoints, tool calls in streams, backpressure. Testing: mocking LLM responses, VCR.py recording, structured output validation. Use…
llm-evaluation
Implement comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications using automated metrics, human feedback, and benchmarking. Use when testing LLM performance, measuring AI application quality, or establishing evaluation frameworks.
llm-eval
LLM evaluation: build evaluation datasets, choose metrics (RAGAS, G-Eval, LLM-as-judge), run automated evals, monitor production quality, and detect regressions.