Install
$ agentstack add skill-scoobydont-666-shared-claude-skills-model-evaluation ✓ 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
Model Evaluation — Systematic LLM Quality Assessment
Evaluation Framework
5 Dimensions (Always Test All)
| Dimension | What to Measure | How | |-----------|----------------|-----| | Factual Recall | Specific numbers, dates, thresholds | Known-answer questions | | Calculation | Step-by-step math, correct final answer | Problems with verifiable solutions | | Edge Cases | Ambiguous scenarios requiring judgment | Tricky questions with nuanced answers | | Citation | References real sources (IRC §, IRS Pub) | Check every citation exists | | Coherence | Well-structured, complete, no degeneration | Length, structure, readability |
Scoring
PASS: Correct answer, well-reasoned, properly cited
PARTIAL: Correct concept, wrong number or missing citation
FAIL: Wrong answer, hallucinated citation, or degenerated output
Comparison Methodology
Side-by-Side Evaluation
# Run same question through both models
for question in eval_set:
response_a = query(model_a, question)
response_b = query(model_b, question)
# Score independently on 5 dimensions
Regression Detection
When fine-tuning iterations:
- Run eval BEFORE training (baseline)
- Run eval AFTER training (candidate)
- Compare dimension-by-dimension
- Any dimension regression → investigate before deploying
Overfit Detection Signs
- Model outputs dots, repeating characters, or gibberish
- Responses are exact copies of training examples
- Model can't handle questions outside training distribution
- Response length dramatically changes (too short or infinite)
Root cause: Too many epochs on too little data. Fix: Reduce epochs, add more diverse training data.
Evaluation Set Design
For Domain-Specific Models (e.g., Tax)
| Category | Count | Purpose | |----------|-------|---------| | Factual (known answers) | 10 | Tests memorization of current facts | | Calculation | 5 | Tests reasoning + arithmetic | | Scenario-based | 5 | Tests application of rules | | Edge cases | 5 | Tests judgment under ambiguity | | Out-of-domain | 3 | Tests guardrails (should refuse/deflect) | | Total | 28 | Minimum viable eval set |
Question Quality Rules
- Every question must have a verifiable correct answer
- Include the year in factual questions (tax rates change)
- Calculation questions must have worked solutions for comparison
- Edge cases should have multiple valid perspectives
- Out-of-domain questions test that the model doesn't hallucinate expertise
Evaluation Tooling
evaluate.py Pattern
def evaluate(models: list[str], questions: list[dict]) -> list[dict]:
results = []
for q in questions:
row = {"question": q["text"], "expected": q["answer"], "responses": {}}
for model in models:
response = query_ollama(model, q["text"])
row["responses"][model] = {
"text": response,
"tokens": token_count,
"latency_ms": latency,
"matches_expected": check_answer(response, q["answer"]),
}
results.append(row)
return results
Automated Scoring (Where Possible)
- Factual: Extract numbers, compare to expected
- Calculation: Extract final answer, compare to expected
- Citation: Regex for IRC §, IRS Pub — verify they exist
- Coherence: Check length > 100 chars, no repeated tokens
- Edge cases: Requires human review
Training Data vs Model Quality Correlation
Quality = f(data_quality × data_quantity × model_size) / epochs²
More data → linear improvement
Better data → exponential improvement
More epochs → diminishing returns → overfit
Bigger model → better reasoning, same fact accuracy
Production Deployment Checklist
Before deploying a fine-tuned model:
- [ ] Run full eval set (28+ questions)
- [ ] Compare against baseline on all 5 dimensions
- [ ] No dimension regression
- [ ] Overfit check: test 5 out-of-domain questions
- [ ] Coherence check: 10 random prompts, all produce structured output
- [ ] Latency check: <5s for typical responses
- [ ] VRAM check: fits in target GPU with room for inference
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: scoobydont-666
- Source: scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skills
- 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.