Complete AI Training
Sign inBecome a member

Your job's AI kit

Get your AI kit

Tell us who you are and what you do. We show you your kit right away and email you the link: skills, prompts, AI agents, MCP servers and courses for your job.

500+ jobs ready, and we make a kit for any other job. No payment needed to look.

Share

Skill · AI Agents

Eval

Evaluate and rank agent results by metric or LLM judge for an AgentHub session. Use when the user runs /hub:eval or asks to score, compare, or pick a winner among completed AgentHub agents.

Agency SkillsLicense: MITAdded Sep 29, 2026
Use it in my AI

How to use it

  1. Start your plan and connect your AI once
  2. Add the skill to your AI, one time only: press Copy skill and paste it into your AI's instructions: a project in ChatGPT, Claude or Grok, a Gem in Gemini, an agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot, or a rule in Cursor. It stays there for every new chat. In Kimi, paste it at the start of a new chat.
  3. Ask for the task in your own words, or say it directly:
Use the Eval skill to help me with this.
SKILL.md2 files in this skill

/hub:eval — Evaluate Agent Results

Rank all agent results for a session. Supports metric-based evaluation (run a command), LLM judge (compare diffs), or hybrid.

Usage

/hub:eval                           # Eval latest session using configured criteria
/hub:eval 20260317-143022           # Eval specific session
/hub:eval --judge                   # Force LLM judge mode (ignore metric config)

What It Does

Metric Mode (eval command configured)

Run the evaluation command in each agent's worktree:

python {skill_path}/scripts/result_ranker.py \
  --session {session-id} \
  --eval-cmd "{eval_cmd}" \
  --metric {metric} --direction {direction}

Output:

RANK  AGENT       METRIC      DELTA      FILES
1     agent-2     142ms       -38ms      2
2     agent-1     165ms       -15ms      3
3     agent-3     190ms       +10ms      1

Winner: agent-2 (142ms)

LLM Judge Mode (no eval command, or --judge flag)

For each agent:

  1. Get the diff: git diff {base_branch}...{agent_branch}
  2. Read the agent's result post from .agenthub/board/results/agent-{i}-result.md
  3. Compare all diffs and rank by:
  • Correctness — Does it solve the task?
  • Simplicity — Fewer lines changed is better (when equal correctness)
  • Quality — Clean execution, good structure, no regressions

Present rankings with justification.

Example LLM judge output for a content task:

RANK  AGENT    VERDICT                               WORD COUNT
1     agent-1  Strong narrative, clear CTA            1480
2     agent-3  Good data points, weak intro           1520
3     agent-2  Generic tone, no differentiation       1350

Winner: agent-1 (strongest narrative arc and call-to-action)

Hybrid Mode

  1. Run metric evaluation first
  2. If top agents are within 10% of each other, use LLM judge to break ties
  3. Present both metric and qualitative rankings

After Eval

  1. Update session state:
python {skill_path}/scripts/session_manager.py --update {session-id} --state evaluating
  1. Tell the user:
  • Ranked results with winner highlighted
  • Next step: /hub:merge to merge the winner
  • Or /hub:merge {session-id} --agent {winner} to be explicit