Install
$ agentstack add skill-ariaxhan-the-agent-library-test-the-measuring-stick ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Test the Measuring Stick
Before you trust what a score says about the work, test what the score says about garbage. A grader that rates a worthless answer highly is not measuring quality: it is measuring something else, and every "good" score it gave is unverifiable. This finds that out cheaply.
Use it whenever a number is about to drive a decision, especially when an AI assigned the number.
1. Build the laziest fake answer
Construct a response that does zero real work but has the right shape:
- Copy the question back as the "answer".
- Return an empty-but-correctly-formatted result.
- Give a single canned, content-free line.
The goal is something that should obviously score near the bottom if the grader works.
2. Run the dummy through the exact same scoring
Use the identical grader, rubric, prompt, or ranking, unchanged. No special-casing. Whatever scored the real work scores the dummy.
3. Read what the dummy score tells you
- Dummy scores low → the stick has teeth. The real scores mean something.
- Dummy scores high → the stick is broken. A presence/format/length signal is being rewarded instead of quality. The real scores are now unverified, not good. Treat every one of them as suspect.
A format or structure bonus is the usual culprit: it can float an empty answer to the top.
4. Check for a saturated ceiling
If almost everything (good, mediocre, dummy) clusters near the top, the test is too easy to separate quality at all. Reaching for a bigger, more expensive grader to push the winners higher is p-hacking, not science. Make the test harder, not the grader stronger.
5. Compare against the cheap floor, not zero
"Beats chance" or "beats nothing" is the wrong bar. Name the cheapest thing that already works (the free tool, a one-line baseline, copy-paste, the incumbent) and confirm the expensive option beats that. An expensive signal that loses to a free baseline is not an improvement, however high its raw score.
Output
Return:
- The dummy answer used and the score it received.
- The verdict: stick has teeth / task is trivially easy (saturated ceiling) / stick is broken.
- The cheap-floor comparison: what the cheapest working alternative scores, and whether the expensive option actually beats it.
- If the stick is broken, name the signal it is actually rewarding (presence, format, length) so it can be fixed.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: ariaxhan
- Source: ariaxhan/the-agent-library
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.