llm-evaluation
Use when building evaluation for an LLM app: automated metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, RAG retrieval), human rating, LLM-as-judge and regression baselines. Broad metric-level overview; for judge rubric design use advanced-evaluation, for agent pipelines use agent-evaluation.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 所属仓库
- monoes/monomind
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-10
- Stars
- ★ 23
- Forks
- 2
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- llm-evaluation
- tags
- [ "ai-ml", "testing", "llm", "evaluation" ]
- tools
- []
- source
- https://github.com/wshobson/agents
- license
- MIT
- description
- Use when building evaluation for an LLM app: automated metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, RAG retrieval), human rating, LLM-as-judge and regression baselines. Broad metric-level overview; for judge rubric design use advanced-evaluation, for agent pipelines use agent-evaluation.
- source_path
- plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation
- source_commit
- 4236bb91f8395b0435f1d8b8baf9e8e4c69a8620
02 资源文件 2
- 许可证LICENSE.txt1.0 KB
- 参考文档references/details.md13.7 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
LLM Evaluation
Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.
When to Use This Skill
- Measuring LLM application performance systematically
- Comparing different models or prompts
- Detecting performance regressions before deployment
- Validating improvements from prompt changes
- Building confidence in production systems
- Establishing baselines and tracking progress over time
- Debugging unexpected model behavior
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
Quick Start
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Callable
import numpy as np
@dataclass
class Metric:
name: str
fn: Callable
@staticmethod
def accuracy():
return Metric("accuracy", calculate_accuracy)
@staticmethod
def bleu():
return Metric("bleu", calculate_bleu)
@staticmethod
def bertscore():
return Metric("bertscore", calculate_bertscore)
@staticmethod
def custom(name: str, fn: Callable):
return Metric(name, fn)
class EvaluationSuite:
def __init__(self, metrics: list[Metric]):
self.metrics = metrics
async def evaluate(self, model, test_cases: list[dict]) -> dict:
results = {m.name: [] for m in self.metrics}
for test in test_cases:
prediction = await model.predict(test["input"])
for metric in self.metrics:
score = metric.fn(
prediction=prediction,
reference=test.get("expected"),
context=test.get("context")
)
results[metric.name].append(score)
return {
"metrics": {k: np.mean(v) for k, v in results.items()},
"raw_scores": results
}
# Usage
suite = EvaluationSuite([
Metric.accuracy(),
Metric.bleu(),
Metric.bertscore(),
Metric.custom("groundedness", check_groundedness)
])
test_cases = [
{
"input": "What is the capital of France?",
"expected": "Paris",
"context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital."
},
]
results = await suite.evaluate(model=your_model, test_cases=test_cases)
Detailed patterns and worked examples
Detailed pattern documentation lives in references/details.md. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
zk-steward
Org role guidance for a ZK steward: engineer zero-knowledge proof systems with circuit design, SNARK vs STARK choice and security review. This is zero-knowledge cryptography, not Zettelkasten note-taking.
writing-plans
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step coding task and must write an implementation plan before touching code. Produces bite-sized TDD tasks with exact file paths, code and commands for an engineer with zero context.
write-spec
Write a feature spec or PRD from a problem statement or feature idea. Use when turning a vague idea or user request into a structured document, scoping a feature with goals and non-goals, defining success metrics and acceptance criteria, or breaking a big ask into a phased spec.
write-query
Write optimized SQL for your dialect with best practices. Use when translating a natural-language data need into SQL, building a multi-CTE query with joins and aggregations, optimizing a query against a large partitioned table, or getting dialect-specific syntax for Snowflake, BigQuery, Postgres, etc.
workflow-automation
Org role guidance for workflow automation: build and maintain CI/CD definitions in GitHub Actions or equivalent: triggers, jobs, matrices, caching. Covers path filters, dependency caching, parallel jobs, timeouts and fail-fast ordering.
workflow-architect
Org role guidance for a workflow architect: map full workflow trees for systems, user journeys and agents, covering every branch and failure. Covers discovering workflows from code, handoff contracts, timeouts, recovery paths and observable state.