AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Ai Evals

skill-refoundai-lenny-skills-ai-evals · by RefoundAI

Help users create and run AI evaluations. Use when someone is building evals for LLM products, measuring model quality, creating test cases, designing rubrics, or trying to systematically measure AI output quality.

No reviews yet
0 installs
3 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-refoundai-lenny-skills-ai-evals

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No 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.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-refoundai-lenny-skills-ai-evals)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
6mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

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 →
Are you the author of Ai Evals? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

AI Evals

Help the user create systematic evaluations for AI products using insights from AI practitioners.

How to Help

When the user asks for help with AI evals:

  1. Understand what they're evaluating - Ask what AI feature or model they're testing and what "good" looks like
  2. Help design the eval approach - Suggest rubrics, test cases, and measurement methods
  3. Guide implementation - Help them think through edge cases, scoring criteria, and iteration cycles
  4. Connect to product requirements - Ensure evals align with actual user needs, not just technical metrics

Core Principles

Evals are the new PRD

Brendan Foody: "If the model is the product, then the eval is the product requirement document." Evals define what success looks like in AI products—they're not optional quality checks, they're core specifications.

Evals are a core product skill

Hamel Husain & Shreya Shankar: "Both the chief product officers of Anthropic and OpenAI shared that evals are becoming the most important new skill for product builders." This isn't just for ML engineers—product people need to master this.

The workflow matters

Building good evals involves error analysis, open coding (writing down what's wrong), clustering failure patterns, and creating rubrics. It's a systematic process, not a one-time test.

Questions to Help Users

  • "What does 'good' look like for this AI output?"
  • "What are the most common failure modes you've seen?"
  • "How will you know if the model got better or worse?"
  • "Are you measuring what users actually care about?"
  • "Have you manually reviewed enough outputs to understand failure patterns?"

Common Mistakes to Flag

  • Skipping manual review - You can't write good evals without first understanding failure patterns through manual trace analysis
  • Using vague criteria - "The output should be good" isn't an eval; you need specific, measurable criteria
  • LLM-as-judge without validation - If using an LLM to judge, you must validate that judge against human experts
  • Likert scales over binary - Force Pass/Fail decisions; 1-5 scales produce meaningless averages

Deep Dive

For all 2 insights from 2 guests, see references/guest-insights.md

Related Skills

  • Building with LLMs
  • AI Product Strategy
  • Evaluating New Technology

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.