Evaluation Methodology
PluginEval quality methodology — dimensions, rubrics, statistical methods, and scoring formulas. Use this skill when understanding how plugin quality is measured, when interpreting a low score on a specific dimension, when deciding how to improve a skill's triggering accuracy or orchestration fitness, when calibrating scoring thresholds for your marketplace, or when explaining quality badges to external partners like Neon.
- Skill ID
- wshobson/agents/evaluation-methodology
- Publisher
- wshobson
- Repository
- agents
- Installs
- 0
- Files
- 2
- Synced
- Sep 23, 2026
Open any RiverX project, open the Skills panel in the chat, and search for this identifier. The files are fetched from the source repository at install time.
wshobson/agents/evaluation-methodologyInstalls these files- SKILL.md
- references/rubrics.md
What this skill tells the agent
Evaluation Methodology
This document is the authoritative reference for how PluginEval measures plugin and skill quality. It covers the three evaluation layers, all ten scoring dimensions, the composite formula, badge thresholds, anti-pattern flags, Elo ranking, and actionable improvement tips.
Related: Full rubric anchors
The Three Evaluation Layers
PluginEval stacks three complementary layers. Each layer produces a score between 0.0 and 1.0 for each applicable dimension, and later layers override or blend with earlier ones according to per-dimension blend weights.
Layer 1 — Static Analysis
Speed: < 2 seconds. No LLM calls. Deterministic.
The static analyzer (layers/static.py) runs six sub-checks directly against the parsed SKILL.md:
| Sub-check | What it measures |
|---|---|
frontmatter_quality | Name presence, description length, trigger-phrase quality |
orchestration_wiring | Output/input documentation, code block count, orchestrator anti-pattern |
progressive_disclosure | Line count vs. sweet-spot (200–600 lines), references/ and assets/ bonuses |
structural_completeness | Heading density, code blocks, examples section, troubleshooting section |
token_efficiency | MUST/NEVER/ALWAYS density, duplicate-line repetition ratio |
ecosystem_coherence | Cross-references to other skills/agents, "related"/"see also" mentions |
These six sub-checks feed directly into six of the ten final dimensions (via STATIC_TO_DIMENSION mapping). The remaining four dimensions — output_quality, scope_calibration, robustness, and part of triggering_accuracy — receive no static contribution and rely entirely on Layer 2 and/or Layer 3.
Anti-pattern penalty is applied multiplicatively to the Layer 1 score:
penalty = max(0.5, 1.0 − 0.05 × anti_pattern_count)Each additional detected anti-pattern reduces the score by 5%, flooring at 50%.
Layer 2 — LLM Judge
Speed: 30–90 seconds. One or more LLM calls (Sonnet by default). Non-deterministic.
The eval-judge agent reads the SKILL.md and any references/ files, then scores four dimensions using anchored rubrics (see references/rubrics.md):
- Triggering accuracy — F1 score derived from 10 mental test prompts
- Orchestration fitness — Worker purity assessment (0–1 rubric)
- Output quality — Simulates 3 realistic tasks; assesses instruction quality
- Scope calibration — Judges depth and breadth relative to the skill's category
The judge returns a structured JSON object (no markdown fences) that the eval engine merges into the composite. When judges > 1, scores are averaged and Cohen's kappa is reported as an inter-judge agreement metric.
Layer 3 — Monte Carlo Simulation
Speed: 5–20 minutes. N=50 simulated Agent SDK invocations (default). Statistical.
Monte Carlo runs N real prompts through the skill and records:
- Activation rate — Fraction of prompts that triggered the skill
- Output consistency — Coefficient of variation (CV) across quality scores
- Failure rate — Error/crash fraction with Clopper-Pearson exact CIs
- Token efficiency — Median token count, IQR, outlier count
The Layer 3 composite formula:
mc_score = 0.40 × activation_rate
+ 0.30 × (1 − min(1.0, CV))
+ 0.20 × (1 − failure_rate)
+ 0.10 × efficiency_normwhere efficiency_norm = max(0, 1 − median_tokens / 8000).
Composite Scoring Formula
The final score is a weighted blend across all three layers for each dimension, then summed:
composite = Σ(dimension_weight × blended_dimension_score) × 100 × anti_pattern_penaltyDimension Weights
| Dimension | Weight | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
triggering_accuracy | 0.25 | A skill that never fires — or fires incorrectly — has no value |
orchestration_fitness | 0.20 | Skills must be pure workers; supervisor logic belongs in agents |
output_quality | 0.15 | Correct, complete output is the primary deliverable |
scope_calibration | 0.12 | Neither a stub nor a bloated monster |
progressive_disclosure | 0.10 | SKILL.md is lean; detail lives in references/ |
token_efficiency | 0.06 | Minimal context waste per invocation |
robustness | 0.05 | Handles edge cases without crashing |
structural_completeness | 0.03 | Correct sections in the right order |
code_template_quality | 0.02 | Working, copy-paste-ready examples |
ecosystem_coherence | 0.02 | Cross-references; no duplication with siblings |
Layer Blend Weights
Each dimension draws from different layers at different ratios. With all three layers active (--depth deep or certify):
| Dimension | Static | Judge | Monte Carlo |
|---|---|---|---|
triggering_accuracy | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.60 |
orchestration_fitness | 0.10 | 0.70 | 0.20 |
output_quality | 0.00 | 0.40 | 0.60 |
scope_calibration | 0.30 | 0.55 | 0.15 |
progressive_disclosure | 0.80 | 0.20 | 0.00 |
token_efficiency | 0.40 | 0.10 | 0.50 |
robustness | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.80 |
structural_completeness | 0.90 | 0.10 | 0.00 |
code_template_quality | 0.30 | 0.70 | 0.00 |
ecosystem_coherence | 0.85 | 0.15 | 0.00 |
At --depth standard (static + judge only), blends are renormalized to drop the Monte Carlo column. At --depth quick (static only), all weight falls on Layer 1.
Blended Score Calculation
For a given depth, the blended score for dimension d is:
blended[d] = Σ( layer_weight[d][layer] × layer_score[d][layer] )
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Σ( layer_weight[d][layer] for available layers )This normalization ensures that skipping Monte Carlo at standard depth doesn't artificially deflate scores.
Interpreting Dimension Scores
Each dimension score is a float in [0.0, 1.0]. The CLI converts it to a letter grade:
| Grade | Score range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| A | 0.90 – 1.00 | Excellent — no meaningful improvement needed |
| B | 0.80 – 0.89 | Good — minor gaps only |
| C | 0.70 – 0.79 | Adequate — one or two clear improvement areas |
| D | 0.60 – 0.69 | Marginal — needs targeted work |
| F | < 0.60 | Failing — significant remediation required |
When reading a report, focus first on the lowest-graded dimension that has the highest weight. A D in triggering_accuracy (weight 0.25) costs far more than a D in ecosystem_coherence (weight 0.02).
Confidence intervals appear in the report when Layer 2 or Layer 3 ran. Narrow CIs (± < 5 points) indicate stable scores. Wide CIs suggest inconsistency — often caused by an ambiguous description or instructions that work for some prompt styles but not others.
Quality Badges
Badges require both a composite score threshold AND an Elo threshold (when Elo is available). The Badge.from_scores() logic checks composite first, then Elo if provided:
| Badge | Composite | Elo | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platinum ★★★★★ | ≥ 90 | ≥ 1600 | Reference quality — suitable for gold corpus |
| Gold ★★★★ | ≥ 80 | ≥ 1500 | Production ready |
| Silver ★★★ | ≥ 70 | ≥ 1400 | Functional, has improvement opportunities |
| Bronze ★★ | ≥ 60 | ≥ 1300 | Minimum viable — not yet recommended for users |
| — | < 60 | any | Does not meet minimum bar |
The Elo threshold is skipped when Elo has not been computed (i.e., at quick or standard depth without certify). A skill can earn a badge on composite score alone in those cases.
Anti-Pattern Flags
The static analyzer detects five anti-patterns. Each carries a severity multiplier that feeds into the penalty formula.
OVER_CONSTRAINED
Trigger: More than 15 occurrences of MUST, ALWAYS, or NEVER in the SKILL.md.
Problem: Overly prescriptive instructions reduce model flexibility, increase token overhead, and signal that the author is trying to micromanage every output rather than providing principled guidance.
More from wshobson
Use this skill in a project
Open any RiverX project, search the Skills panel for wshobson/agents/evaluation-methodology, and install it in one click.
