eval — quality + safety report

In the Skillier index (alireza__eval) · scanned 2026-06-03 · engine: builtin+triage

A
Quality
98/100
Safety

1 heuristic flag to review

Heuristic flags from the builtin scanner, which is known to over-flag (it trips on legitimate env-reading integrations, security skills, and library .eval calls). This is NOT an authoritative malicious verdict — re-scan with SkillSpector for the authoritative result. Run the authoritative scan →

Skillproof quality grade A

📇 This skill is in the Skillier index (curated · deduped · quality-filtered). Install Skillier to route & load it into your AI client.

Quality notes

No explicit trigger / 'when to use'
low · quality · body
→ Add a 'When to use' section or 'Use this when …' line listing trigger conditions.

About this skill

Evaluate and rank agent results by metric or LLM judge for an AgentHub session.

📄 Read the SKILL.md
---
name: "eval"
description: "Evaluate and rank agent results by metric or LLM judge for an AgentHub session."
command: /hub:eval
---

# /hub:eval — Evaluate Agent Results

Rank all agent results for a session. Supports metric-based evaluation (run a command), LLM judge (compare diffs), or hybrid.

## Usage

```
/hub:eval                           # Eval latest session using configured criteria
/hub:eval 20260317-143022           # Eval specific session
/hub:eval --judge                   # Force LLM judge mode (ignore metric config)
```

## What It Does

### Metric Mode (eval command configured)

Run the evaluation command in each agent's worktree:

```bash
python {skill_path}/scripts/result_ranker.py \
  --session {session-id} \
  --eval-cmd "{eval_cmd}" \
  --metric {metric} --direction {direction}
```

Output:
```
RANK  AGENT       METRIC      DELTA      FILES
1     agent-2     142ms       -38ms      2
2     agent-1     165ms       -15ms      3
3     agent-3     190ms       +10ms      1

Winner: agent-2 (142ms)
```

### LLM Judge Mode (no eval command, or --judge flag)

For each agent:
1. Get the diff: `git diff {base_branch}...{agent_branch}`
2. Read the agent's result post from `.agenthub/board/results/agent-{i}-result.md`
3. Compare all diffs and rank by:
   - **Correctness** — Does it solve the task?
   - **Simplicity** — Fewer lines changed is better (when equal correctness)
   - **Quality** — Clean execution, good structure, no regressions

Present rankings with justification.

Example LLM judge output for a content task:
```
RANK  AGENT    VERDICT                               WORD COUNT
1     agent-1  Strong narrative, clear CTA            1480
2     agent-3  Good data points, weak intro           1520
3     agent-2  Generic tone, no differentiation       1350

Winner: agent-1 (strongest narrative arc and call-to-action)
```

### Hybrid Mode

1. Run metric evaluation first
2. If top agents are within 10% of each other, use LLM judge to break ties
3. Present both metric and qualitative rankings

## After Eval

1. Update session state:
```bash
python {skill_path}/scripts/session_manager.py --update {session-id} --state evaluating
```

2. Tell the user:
   - Ranked results with winner highlighted
   - Next step: `/hub:merge` to merge the winner
   - Or `/hub:merge {session-id} --agent {winner}` to be explicit
Scan or optimize your own skill →

Want a live grade + an embeddable README badge? Run your skill through the free scanner.

Graded independently by Skillproof — nothing to sell the author. Quality is mechanical + corpus-grounded; safety flags are heuristic (builtin+triage), not a malicious verdict.