BC model-evaluation
Compute and report task-correct held-out metrics for a trained medical-imaging model — segmentation (Dice plus a boundary metric such as HD95 or NSD, per structure), classification (AUROC plus AUPRC and sensitivity/specificity with bootstrap CIs at the deployment prevalence), detection (FROC or mAP with a stated IoU criterion), interactive/promptable segmentation (the interaction-count, convergence, and per-case-time axes a static Dice omits), or generative/synthesis image evaluation (similarity plus the downstream-task efficacy similarity alone cannot establish) — plus calibration and subgroup slices. Emits a per-case results table that analyze-stats turns into publication tables, and gates the metric choice against Metrics Reloaded, CLAIM 2024, and Park et al. 2024 (no pixel accuracy for segmentation, no bare accuracy under imbalance, no static Dice for an interactive method, no similarity-only claim for a generative model). Numbers come only from executed code, never hand-typed.
Compute and report task-correct held-out metrics for a trained medical-imaging model — segmentation (Dice plus a boundary metric such as HD95 or NSD, per…
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 18. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools"
Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 16 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1405 tokens
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 996: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.