evals-skills

Build a custom browser-based annotation interface tailored to your data for reviewing LLM traces and collecting structured feedback. Use when you need to build an annotation tool, review traces, or collect human labels.

Run error analysis on a dataset. Build a review UI, select diverse samples, monitor annotations, and organize failure modes.

Audit an LLM eval pipeline and surface problems: missing error analysis, unvalidated judges, vanity metrics, etc. Use when inheriting an eval system, when unsure whether evals are trustworthy, or as a starting point when no eval infrastructure exists. Do NOT use when the goal is to build a new evaluator from scratch (use error-discovery, write-judge-prompt, or validate-evaluator instead).

Entry point for evals. Use when the user asks for help with evals, does not know where to begin, or asks for something no other skill in this plugin matches. Do NOT use when a more specific skill in this plugin already matches; load that skill directly.

Guides evaluation of RAG pipeline retrieval and generation quality. Use when evaluating a retrieval-augmented generation system, measuring retrieval quality, assessing generation faithfulness or relevance, generating synthetic QA pairs for retrieval testing, or optimizing chunking strategies.

Create diverse synthetic test inputs for LLM pipeline evaluation using dimension-based tuple generation. Use when bootstrapping an eval dataset, when real user data is sparse, or when stress-testing specific failure hypotheses. Do NOT use when you already have 100+ representative real traces (use stratified sampling instead), or when the task is collecting production logs.

Calibrate an LLM judge against human labels using data splits, TPR/TNR, and bias correction. Use after writing a judge prompt (write-judge-prompt) when you need to verify alignment before trusting its outputs. Do NOT use for code-based evaluators (those are deterministic; test with unit tests per `write-code-eval`).

Write code evaluators for known failure modes with objective rules. Use when code can check the rule from a trace, with or without a reference answer. Use `write-judge-prompt` when the rule requires interpretation.

Design LLM-as-Judge evaluators for subjective criteria that code-based checks cannot handle. Use when a failure mode requires interpretation (tone, faithfulness, relevance, completeness). Do NOT use when the failure mode can be checked with code (regex, schema validation, execution tests); use `write-code-eval`. To validate an existing judge, use `validate-evaluator`.