llm-as-judge-evaluation

llm-as-judge-evaluation is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from synthetic-sciences/openscience. It costs 56 tokens per session (2,989 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

An evaluation method that uses one language model to compare or score the answers produced by another model, using a set of rules called a rubric.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to compare models, check releases before deployment, monitor quality over time, and create preference pairs for DPO or RLHF training.
Why use it?
It provides a repeatable way to judge open-ended answers when there is no single correct result.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to compare models, check releases before deployment, monitor quality over time, and create preference pairs for DPO or RLHF training.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/synthetic-sciences/openscience/llm-as-judge-evaluation
About the project

synthetic-sciences/openscience is an AI workbench that carries out scientific research by reading papers, forming hypotheses, writing and running code, conducting experiments, analyzing results, and preparing reports. Researchers use it for work in machine learning, biology, physics, and chemistry with remote or local models. Catalogue add-ons extend its scientific workflows through skills and instructions.

synthetic-sciences/openscience · 3,501 stars · on GitHub · openscience.sh

Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add synthetic-sciences/openscience --skill llm-as-judge-evaluation
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/synthetic-sciences/openscience

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for llm-as-judge-evaluation

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synthetic-sciences/openscience/llm-as-judge-evaluation.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/synthetic-sciences/openscience/llm-as-judge-evaluation)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/synthetic-sciences/openscience/llm-as-judge-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synthetic-sciences/openscience/llm-as-judge-evaluation.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 56 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,989 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00056 $0.02989
Opus 5 $0.00028 $0.01494
Sonnet 5 $0.00011 $0.00598
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00299

Measured 4d ago against content hash ebe1a7f78860, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

llm-as-judge-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 4d 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.

backend/cli/skills/llm-tools/llm-as-judge-evaluation/SKILL.md · 387 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 387 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

LLM-as-Judge Evaluation

When to Use This Skill

Use LLM-as-Judge evaluation when you need to:

  • Compare a fine-tuned model vs frontier — Does the student beat the teacher on your task?
  • Quality gates before deployment — Automated go/no-go on model releases
  • Continuous evaluation — Monitor production model quality over time
  • Generate preference data — Create (chosen, rejected) pairs for DPO/RLHF training
  • Evaluate without ground truth — When exact answers don't exist (creative, open-ended tasks)

When NOT to Use

  • Tasks with verifiable answers (math, code execution) — use exact match or unit tests
  • Extremely simple classification — use accuracy/F1 directly
  • Safety evaluation — use dedicated safety benchmarks, not general judges

Pairwise Comparison

The most reliable LLM-as-judge method. Show a judge two outputs (A and B) and ask which is better.

Basic Implementation

import openai
import json
import random

client = openai.OpenAI()

PAIRWISE_PROMPT = """You are an expert evaluator. Compare two responses to the same prompt.

## Task Context
{task_description}

## User Input
{user_input}

## Response A
{response_a}

## Response B
{response_b}

## Evaluation Criteria
{criteria}

Which response is better? Consider all criteria above.
Return JSON: {{"winner": "A" or "B" or "tie", "reasoning": "brief explanation"}}"""


def pairwise_compare(user_input, response_a, response_b, task_description, criteria,
                     model="gpt-4o", swap_positions=True):
    """Compare two responses with position bias mitigation."""
    results = []

    # First comparison: A=position1, B=position2
    prompt = PAIRWISE_PROMPT.format(
        task_description=task_description,
        user_input=user_input,
        response_a=response_a,
        response_b=response_b,
        criteria=criteria,
    )
    resp = client.chat.completions.create(
        model=model,
        messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}],
        response_format={"type": "json_object"},
        temperature=0,
    )
    result1 = json.loads(resp.choices[0].message.content)
    results.append(result1["winner"])

    if swap_positions:
        # Second comparison: swap positions to detect position bias
        prompt_swapped = PAIRWISE_PROMPT.format(
            task_description=task_description,
            user_input=user_input,
            response_a=response_b,  # Swapped
            response_b=response_a,  # Swapped
            criteria=criteria,
        )
        resp2 = client.chat.completions.create(
            model=model,
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt_swapped}],
            response_format={"type": "json_object"},
            temperature=0,
        )
        result2 = json.loads(resp2.choices[0].message.content)
        # Reverse the swapped result
        swapped_winner = {"A": "B", "B": "A", "tie": "tie"}[result2["winner"]]
        results.append(swapped_winner)

    # Aggregate: both must agree, otherwise tie
    if len(set(results)) == 1:
        return results[0]
    return "tie"

Read the full file on GitHub · 387 lines

Files

What ships with it

2 files 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.

Changes

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.

  1. 4d ago First seen · 387 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A ebe1a7f78860

Subscribe to this mod's changes

llm-as-judge-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository synthetic-sciences/openscience (3,501 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 2,989 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.

Related

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.

chandrudp29/skillhub · 39 tokens

tmux-manual-qa

Run a single manual tmux-based QA scenario for the todo continuation feature against the real CLI (./pi-test.sh) in an interactive TUI. Captures scrollback, asserts deterministic pass/fail count markers, and cleans up test fixtures. Use only for the manual-qa milestone features.

code-yeongyu/senpi · 66 tokens

prompt-regression

Use when the user has changed a prompt (system prompt, RAG template, agent instruction, etc.) and wants to know whether the candidate is better or worse than the baseline. Also use when the user mentions prompt A/B testing, prompt comparison, prompt optimization validation, "did my prompt change help," or prompt…

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge · 86 tokens

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…

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge · 101 tokens

rag-eval

Use when the user has a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) system and wants to evaluate its quality — separating retrieval issues from generation issues. Also use when the user mentions RAG evaluation, faithfulness checking, hallucination detection in RAG, retrieval quality, chunking optimization, or "is my RAG…

agentscope-ai/OpenJudge · 86 tokens

agent-eval

Use when measuring whether an LLM or agent system actually got better and gating merges on it: golden sets, fixing an inflated LLM-as-judge, scoring RAG (faithfulness, contextual recall) or agent trajectories (tool correctness, completion), or picking an eval framework. NOT building the agent loop, tools or RAG…

ericrisco/rsc-harness · 79 tokens