@github/agentic-eval

---
name: agentic-eval
description: |
  Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs. Use this skill when:
  - Implementing self-critique and reflection loops
  - Building evaluator-optimizer pipelines for quality-critical generation
  - Creating test-driven code refinement workflows
  - Designing rubric-based or LLM-as-judge evaluation systems
  - Adding iterative improvement to agent outputs (code, reports, analysis)
  - Measuring and improving agent response quality
---

# Agentic Evaluation Patterns

Patterns for self-improvement through iterative evaluation and refinement.

## Overview

Evaluation patterns enable agents to assess and improve their own outputs, moving beyond single-shot generation to iterative refinement loops.

```
Generate → Evaluate → Critique → Refine → Output
    ↑                              │
    └──────────────────────────────┘
```

## When to Use

- **Quality-critical generation**: Code, reports, analysis requiring high accuracy
- **Tasks with clear evaluation criteria**: Defined success metrics exist
- **Content requiring specific standards**: Style guides, compliance, formatting

---

## Pattern 1: Basic Reflection

Agent evaluates and improves its own output through self-critique.

```python
def reflect_and_refine(task: str, criteria: list[str], max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
    """Generate with reflection loop."""
    output = llm(f"Complete this task:\n{task}")
    
    for i in range(max_iterations):
        # Self-critique
        critique = llm(f"""
        Evaluate this output against criteria: {criteria}
        Output: {output}
        Rate each: PASS/FAIL with feedback as JSON.
        """)
        
        critique_data = json.loads(critique)
        all_pass = all(c["status"] == "PASS" for c in critique_data.values())
        if all_pass:
            return output
        
        # Refine based on critique
        failed = {k: v["feedback"] for k, v in critique_data.items() if v["status"] == "FAIL"}
        output = llm(f"Improve to address: {failed}\nOriginal: {output}")
    
    return output
```

**Key insight**: Use structured JSON output for reliable parsing of critique results.

---

## Pattern 2: Evaluator-Optimizer

Separate generation and evaluation into distinct components for clearer responsibilities.

```python
class EvaluatorOptimizer:
    def __init__(self, score_threshold: float = 0.8):
        self.score_threshold = score_threshold
    
    def generate(self, task: str) -> str:
        return llm(f"Complete: {task}")
    
    def evaluate(self, output: str, task: str) -> dict:
        return json.loads(llm(f"""
        Evaluate output for task: {task}
        Output: {output}
        Return JSON: {{"overall_score": 0-1, "dimensions": {{"accuracy": ..., "clarity": ...}}}}
        """))
    
    def optimize(self, output: str, feedback: dict) -> str:
        return llm(f"Improve based on feedback: {feedback}\nOutput: {output}")
    
    def run(self, task: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
        output = self.generate(task)
        for _ in range(max_iterations):
            evaluation = self.evaluate(output, task)
            if evaluation["overall_score"] >= self.score_threshold:
                break
            output = self.optimize(output, evaluation)
        return output
```

---

## Pattern 3: Code-Specific Reflection

Test-driven refinement loop for code generation.

```python
class CodeReflector:
    def reflect_and_fix(self, spec: str, max_iterations: int = 3) -> str:
        code = llm(f"Write Python code for: {spec}")
        tests = llm(f"Generate pytest tests for: {spec}\nCode: {code}")
        
        for _ in range(max_iterations):
            result = run_tests(code, tests)
            if result["success"]:
                return code
            code = llm(f"Fix error: {result['error']}\nCode: {code}")
        return code
```

---

## Evaluation Strategies

### Outcome-Based
Evaluate whether output achieves the expected result.

```python
def evaluate_outcome(task: str, output: str, expected: str) -> str:
    return llm(f"Does output achieve expected outcome? Task: {task}, Expected: {expected}, Output: {output}")
```

### LLM-as-Judge
Use LLM to compare and rank outputs.

```python
def llm_judge(output_a: str, output_b: str, criteria: str) -> str:
    return llm(f"Compare outputs A and B for {criteria}. Which is better and why?")
```

### Rubric-Based
Score outputs against weighted dimensions.

```python
RUBRIC = {
    "accuracy": {"weight": 0.4},
    "clarity": {"weight": 0.3},
    "completeness": {"weight": 0.3}
}

def evaluate_with_rubric(output: str, rubric: dict) -> float:
    scores = json.loads(llm(f"Rate 1-5 for each dimension: {list(rubric.keys())}\nOutput: {output}"))
    return sum(scores[d] * rubric[d]["weight"] for d in rubric) / 5
```

---

## Best Practices

| Practice | Rationale |
|----------|-----------|
| **Clear criteria** | Define specific, measurable evaluation criteria upfront |
| **Iteration limits** | Set max iterations (3-5) to prevent infinite loops |
| **Convergence check** | Stop if output score isn't improving between iterations |
| **Log history** | Keep full trajectory for debugging and analysis |
| **Structured output** | Use JSON for reliable parsing of evaluation results |

---

## Quick Start Checklist

```markdown
## Evaluation Implementation Checklist

### Setup
- [ ] Define evaluation criteria/rubric
- [ ] Set score threshold for "good enough"
- [ ] Configure max iterations (default: 3)

### Implementation
- [ ] Implement generate() function
- [ ] Implement evaluate() function with structured output
- [ ] Implement optimize() function
- [ ] Wire up the refinement loop

### Safety
- [ ] Add convergence detection
- [ ] Log all iterations for debugging
- [ ] Handle evaluation parse failures gracefully
```