SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB eval-rubric-designer

Design a scoring rubric and LLM-as-judge prompt to evaluate the quality of an AI feature's output. Use when asked to create an eval rubric, define quality dimensions, build an LLM judge, or decide how to measure whether AI output is good. Produces a rubric with weighted dimensions and concrete 1–5 anchors, a ready-to-run judge prompt, a labelling guide, and notes on judge reliability.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills Agent Skills author: mohitagw15856 MIT 1 file body ≈ 926 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Design a scoring rubric and LLM-as-judge prompt to evaluate the quality of an AI feature's output.

As a process B 78/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: progress reporting

AnalyzerAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
83
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
78/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
50
Failures and branches w 10
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: eval-rubric-designer (mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills)

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • 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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 78/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 15 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 926 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations

    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)
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 387: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 15 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.