LLM Evaluation

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/llm-evaluation

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

LLM Evaluation Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Core Evaluation Types, Automated Metrics Implementation, LLM-as-Judge Patterns, Human Evaluation Frameworks, A/B Testing, Regression Testing.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• The task is unrelated to llm evaluation
• You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
• Measuring LLM application performance systematically
• Comparing different models or prompts
• Detecting performance regressions before deployment
• Validating improvements from prompt changes

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
2. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
3. Provide actionable steps and verification.
4. If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.
5. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
6. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
7. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Instructions

• Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
• Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
• Provide actionable steps and verification.
• If detailed examples are required, open

  resources/implementation-playbook.md

  .

Imported: Core Evaluation Types

1. Automated Metrics

Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.

Text Generation:

• BLEU: N-gram overlap (translation)
• ROUGE: Recall-oriented (summarization)
• METEOR: Semantic similarity
• BERTScore: Embedding-based similarity
• Perplexity: Language model confidence

Classification:

• Accuracy: Percentage correct
• Precision/Recall/F1: Class-specific performance
• Confusion Matrix: Error patterns
• AUC-ROC: Ranking quality

Retrieval (RAG):

• MRR: Mean Reciprocal Rank
• NDCG: Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain
• Precision@K: Relevant in top K
• Recall@K: Coverage in top K

2. Human Evaluation

Manual assessment for quality aspects difficult to automate.

Dimensions:

• Accuracy: Factual correctness
• Coherence: Logical flow
• Relevance: Answers the question
• Fluency: Natural language quality
• Safety: No harmful content
• Helpfulness: Useful to the user

3. LLM-as-Judge

Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs.

Approaches:

• Pointwise: Score individual responses
• Pairwise: Compare two responses
• Reference-based: Compare to gold standard
• Reference-free: Judge without ground truth

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @llm-evaluation to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @llm-evaluation against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @llm-evaluation for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @llm-evaluation using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Quick Start

from llm_eval import EvaluationSuite, Metric

# Define evaluation suite
suite = EvaluationSuite([
    Metric.accuracy(),
    Metric.bleu(),
    Metric.bertscore(),
    Metric.custom(name="groundedness", fn=check_groundedness)
])

# Prepare test cases
test_cases = [
    {
        "input": "What is the capital of France?",
        "expected": "Paris",
        "context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital."
    },
    # ... more test cases
]

# Run evaluation
results = suite.evaluate(
    model=your_model,
    test_cases=test_cases
)

print(f"Overall Accuracy: {results.metrics['accuracy']}")
print(f"BLEU Score: {results.metrics['bleu']}")

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Multiple Metrics: Use diverse metrics for comprehensive view
• Representative Data: Test on real-world, diverse examples
• Baselines: Always compare against baseline performance
• Statistical Rigor: Use proper statistical tests for comparisons
• Continuous Evaluation: Integrate into CI/CD pipeline
• Human Validation: Combine automated metrics with human judgment
• Error Analysis: Investigate failures to understand weaknesses

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Best Practices

1. Multiple Metrics: Use diverse metrics for comprehensive view
2. Representative Data: Test on real-world, diverse examples
3. Baselines: Always compare against baseline performance
4. Statistical Rigor: Use proper statistical tests for comparisons
5. Continuous Evaluation: Integrate into CI/CD pipeline
6. Human Validation: Combine automated metrics with human judgment
7. Error Analysis: Investigate failures to understand weaknesses
8. Version Control: Track evaluation results over time

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/llm-evaluation

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @linear-claude-skill

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @linkedin-automation

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @linkedin-cli

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @linkedin-profile-optimizer

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

references

references/n/a

examples

examples/n/a

scripts

scripts/n/a

agents

agents/n/a

assets

assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Resources

• references/metrics.md: Comprehensive metric guide
• references/human-evaluation.md: Annotation best practices
• references/benchmarking.md: Standard benchmarks
• references/a-b-testing.md: Statistical testing guide
• references/regression-testing.md: CI/CD integration
• assets/evaluation-framework.py: Complete evaluation harness
• assets/benchmark-dataset.jsonl: Example datasets
• scripts/evaluate-model.py: Automated evaluation runner

Imported: Automated Metrics Implementation

BLEU Score

from nltk.translate.bleu_score import sentence_bleu, SmoothingFunction

def calculate_bleu(reference, hypothesis):
    """Calculate BLEU score between reference and hypothesis."""
    smoothie = SmoothingFunction().method4

    return sentence_bleu(
        [reference.split()],
        hypothesis.split(),
        smoothing_function=smoothie
    )

# Usage
bleu = calculate_bleu(
    reference="The cat sat on the mat",
    hypothesis="A cat is sitting on the mat"
)

ROUGE Score

from rouge_score import rouge_scorer

def calculate_rouge(reference, hypothesis):
    """Calculate ROUGE scores."""
    scorer = rouge_scorer.RougeScorer(['rouge1', 'rouge2', 'rougeL'], use_stemmer=True)
    scores = scorer.score(reference, hypothesis)

    return {
        'rouge1': scores['rouge1'].fmeasure,
        'rouge2': scores['rouge2'].fmeasure,
        'rougeL': scores['rougeL'].fmeasure
    }

BERTScore

from bert_score import score

def calculate_bertscore(references, hypotheses):
    """Calculate BERTScore using pre-trained BERT."""
    P, R, F1 = score(
        hypotheses,
        references,
        lang='en',
        model_type='microsoft/deberta-xlarge-mnli'
    )

    return {
        'precision': P.mean().item(),
        'recall': R.mean().item(),
        'f1': F1.mean().item()
    }

Custom Metrics

def calculate_groundedness(response, context):
    """Check if response is grounded in provided context."""
    # Use NLI model to check entailment
    from transformers import pipeline

    nli = pipeline("text-classification", model="microsoft/deberta-large-mnli")

    result = nli(f"{context} [SEP] {response}")[0]

    # Return confidence that response is entailed by context
    return result['score'] if result['label'] == 'ENTAILMENT' else 0.0

def calculate_toxicity(text):
    """Measure toxicity in generated text."""
    from detoxify import Detoxify

    results = Detoxify('original').predict(text)
    return max(results.values())  # Return highest toxicity score

def calculate_factuality(claim, knowledge_base):
    """Verify factual claims against knowledge base."""
    # Implementation depends on your knowledge base
    # Could use retrieval + NLI, or fact-checking API
    pass

Imported: LLM-as-Judge Patterns

Single Output Evaluation

def llm_judge_quality(response, question):
    """Use GPT-5 to judge response quality."""
    prompt = f"""Rate the following response on a scale of 1-10 for:
1. Accuracy (factually correct)
2. Helpfulness (answers the question)
3. Clarity (well-written and understandable)

Question: {question}
Response: {response}

Provide ratings in JSON format:
{{
  "accuracy": <1-10>,
  "helpfulness": <1-10>,
  "clarity": <1-10>,
  "reasoning": "<brief explanation>"
}}
"""

    result = openai.ChatCompletion.create(
        model="gpt-5",
        messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}],
        temperature=0
    )

    return json.loads(result.choices[0].message.content)

Pairwise Comparison

def compare_responses(question, response_a, response_b):
    """Compare two responses using LLM judge."""
    prompt = f"""Compare these two responses to the question and determine which is better.

Question: {question}

Response A: {response_a}

Response B: {response_b}

Which response is better and why? Consider accuracy, helpfulness, and clarity.

Answer with JSON:
{{
  "winner": "A" or "B" or "tie",
  "reasoning": "<explanation>",
  "confidence": <1-10>
}}
"""

    result = openai.ChatCompletion.create(
        model="gpt-5",
        messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}],
        temperature=0
    )

    return json.loads(result.choices[0].message.content)

Imported: Human Evaluation Frameworks

Annotation Guidelines

class AnnotationTask:
    """Structure for human annotation task."""

    def __init__(self, response, question, context=None):
        self.response = response
        self.question = question
        self.context = context

    def get_annotation_form(self):
        return {
            "question": self.question,
            "context": self.context,
            "response": self.response,
            "ratings": {
                "accuracy": {
                    "scale": "1-5",
                    "description": "Is the response factually correct?"
                },
                "relevance": {
                    "scale": "1-5",
                    "description": "Does it answer the question?"
                },
                "coherence": {
                    "scale": "1-5",
                    "description": "Is it logically consistent?"
                }
            },
            "issues": {
                "factual_error": False,
                "hallucination": False,
                "off_topic": False,
                "unsafe_content": False
            },
            "feedback": ""
        }

Inter-Rater Agreement

from sklearn.metrics import cohen_kappa_score

def calculate_agreement(rater1_scores, rater2_scores):
    """Calculate inter-rater agreement."""
    kappa = cohen_kappa_score(rater1_scores, rater2_scores)

    interpretation = {
        kappa < 0: "Poor",
        kappa < 0.2: "Slight",
        kappa < 0.4: "Fair",
        kappa < 0.6: "Moderate",
        kappa < 0.8: "Substantial",
        kappa <= 1.0: "Almost Perfect"
    }

    return {
        "kappa": kappa,
        "interpretation": interpretation[True]
    }

Imported: A/B Testing

Statistical Testing Framework

from scipy import stats
import numpy as np

class ABTest:
    def __init__(self, variant_a_name="A", variant_b_name="B"):
        self.variant_a = {"name": variant_a_name, "scores": []}
        self.variant_b = {"name": variant_b_name, "scores": []}

    def add_result(self, variant, score):
        """Add evaluation result for a variant."""
        if variant == "A":
            self.variant_a["scores"].append(score)
        else:
            self.variant_b["scores"].append(score)

    def analyze(self, alpha=0.05):
        """Perform statistical analysis."""
        a_scores = self.variant_a["scores"]
        b_scores = self.variant_b["scores"]

        # T-test
        t_stat, p_value = stats.ttest_ind(a_scores, b_scores)

        # Effect size (Cohen's d)
        pooled_std = np.sqrt((np.std(a_scores)**2 + np.std(b_scores)**2) / 2)
        cohens_d = (np.mean(b_scores) - np.mean(a_scores)) / pooled_std

        return {
            "variant_a_mean": np.mean(a_scores),
            "variant_b_mean": np.mean(b_scores),
            "difference": np.mean(b_scores) - np.mean(a_scores),
            "relative_improvement": (np.mean(b_scores) - np.mean(a_scores)) / np.mean(a_scores),
            "p_value": p_value,
            "statistically_significant": p_value < alpha,
            "cohens_d": cohens_d,
            "effect_size": self.interpret_cohens_d(cohens_d),
            "winner": "B" if np.mean(b_scores) > np.mean(a_scores) else "A"
        }

    @staticmethod
    def interpret_cohens_d(d):
        """Interpret Cohen's d effect size."""
        abs_d = abs(d)
        if abs_d < 0.2:
            return "negligible"
        elif abs_d < 0.5:
            return "small"
        elif abs_d < 0.8:
            return "medium"
        else:
            return "large"

Imported: Regression Testing

Regression Detection

class RegressionDetector:
    def __init__(self, baseline_results, threshold=0.05):
        self.baseline = baseline_results
        self.threshold = threshold

    def check_for_regression(self, new_results):
        """Detect if new results show regression."""
        regressions = []

        for metric in self.baseline.keys():
            baseline_score = self.baseline[metric]
            new_score = new_results.get(metric)

            if new_score is None:
                continue

            # Calculate relative change
            relative_change = (new_score - baseline_score) / baseline_score

            # Flag if significant decrease
            if relative_change < -self.threshold:
                regressions.append({
                    "metric": metric,
                    "baseline": baseline_score,
                    "current": new_score,
                    "change": relative_change
                })

        return {
            "has_regression": len(regressions) > 0,
            "regressions": regressions
        }

Imported: Benchmarking

Running Benchmarks

class BenchmarkRunner:
    def __init__(self, benchmark_dataset):
        self.dataset = benchmark_dataset

    def run_benchmark(self, model, metrics):
        """Run model on benchmark and calculate metrics."""
        results = {metric.name: [] for metric in metrics}

        for example in self.dataset:
            # Generate prediction
            prediction = model.predict(example["input"])

            # Calculate each metric
            for metric in metrics:
                score = metric.calculate(
                    prediction=prediction,
                    reference=example["reference"],
                    context=example.get("context")
                )
                results[metric.name].append(score)

        # Aggregate results
        return {
            metric: {
                "mean": np.mean(scores),
                "std": np.std(scores),
                "min": min(scores),
                "max": max(scores)
            }
            for metric, scores in results.items()
        }

Imported: Common Pitfalls

• Single Metric Obsession: Optimizing for one metric at the expense of others
• Small Sample Size: Drawing conclusions from too few examples
• Data Contamination: Testing on training data
• Ignoring Variance: Not accounting for statistical uncertainty
• Metric Mismatch: Using metrics not aligned with business goals

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.