Agent skill

Metric Design

by agentscope-ai in agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

A skill your agent uses when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining…

Apache-2.0Auto-check passedAI & LLM Engineering

Install Metric Design

skills CLI
$ npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install agentscope-ai/OpenJudge metric-design --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design .claude/skills/metric-design && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
metric-design
GitHub stars
871
Token cost
~5.1k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,076 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
19
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining…

  • Works in 5 steps: Select Grader Type Per Dimension → Create Custom Graders → Auto-Generate Graders (Cold Start) → …
  • The user has evaluation principles
  • SKILL.md covers When to Activate, Checklist, Step 1: Select Grader Type Per… and Step 2: Create Custom Graders, plus 5 more sections
  • Calls pip; reaches dashscope.aliyuncs.com; needs OPENAI_API_KEY

What it does

Metric Design is an agent skill from agentscope-ai/OpenJudge. Use when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining multiple metrics into a composite score, or building an automated evaluation pipeline. Also use when the user mentions grader selection, metric design, judge prompt engineering, rubric design, evaluation pipeline code, or "how to evaluate [X] automatically." Outputs executable OpenJudge pipeline code.

Its SKILL.md is about 5.1k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in AI & LLM Engineering, covering LLM evaluation and Quizzes and assessments. The repository describes itself as: OpenJudge: A Unified Framework for Holistic Evaluation and Quality Rewards. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • The user has evaluation principles
  • A dataset but needs help choosing the right graders
  • Designing evaluation metrics
  • Creating LLM-as-judge prompts

Example prompts

  • “how to evaluate [X] automatically.”
  • “/metric-design”

Requirements

  • Python 3

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Select Grader Type Per Dimension
  2. Create Custom Graders
  3. Auto-Generate Graders (Cold Start)
  4. Anti-Pattern Scan
  5. Build Pipeline Code

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit d1e0642. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • pip

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    Hosts in commands or code, which the agent is likely to contact:

    • dashscope.aliyuncs.com

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names these keys or tokens, usually read from environment variables:

    • OPENAI_API_KEY

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Metric Design loads about 5.1k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 122 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,076 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~122
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~5.1k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from agentscope-ai/OpenJudge at commit d1e0642, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© agentscope-ai). 1,076 words, ~5,134 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/metric-design/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
metric-design
description
Use when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining multiple metrics into a composite score, or building an automated evaluation pipeline. Also use when the user mentions grader selection, metric design, judge prompt engineering, rubric design, evaluation pipeline code, or "how to evaluate [X] automatically." Outputs executable OpenJudge pipeline code.

Metric Design

Select, configure, and combine evaluation graders into a working pipeline. You choose the right tool for each evaluation dimension — from zero-cost code checks to LLM judges — and produce executable GradingRunner code that runs on OpenJudge.

Requires OpenJudge (pip install py-openjudge). This skill is intentionally SDK-centric — grader selection, GradingRunner, and aggregators are OpenJudge APIs. The design/decision logic still applies if you use another harness; only the code does not.

When to Activate

  • User has eval dimensions/principles but doesn't know which grader type to use
  • User wants to write an LLM-as-judge prompt for a specific failure mode
  • User needs a composite score combining multiple evaluation dimensions
  • User wants to auto-generate graders from labeled data instead of writing them manually
  • User's current evaluation is all LLM-based and too expensive/too slow

Checklist

You MUST create a task for each item and complete them in order:

  1. Select grader types — per dimension, pick the right grader class
  2. Create custom graders — write judge prompts (4-component) or function graders
  3. Auto-generate if applicable — use OpenJudge Generator for cold starts
  4. Run anti-pattern scan — check for Likert, missing few-shot, vague criteria
  5. Build pipeline code — assemble GradingRunner with graders + aggregators

Step 1: Select Grader Type Per Dimension

For each evaluation dimension, walk this decision tree (first match wins):

1. Can a deterministic rule check this?
   → StringMatchGrader / JsonValidatorGrader / FunctionGrader (zero cost, 100% consistent)
   Examples: exact match for classification labels, regex for format checks,
             JSON schema validation, keyword presence/absence

2. Does it require semantic understanding of text quality?
   → LLMGrader with built-in class (low cost, pre-optimized)
   Examples: CorrectnessGrader (factual match), RelevanceGrader (on-topic check),
             HallucinationGrader (faithfulness to context)

3. Does it involve agent behavior (tool calls, planning, memory)?
   → Agent-specific LLMGrader
   Examples: ToolSelectionGrader, TrajectoryAccuracyGrader, MemoryAccuracyGrader

4. Does it involve code execution or syntax?
   → CodeExecutionGrader / SyntaxCheckGrader
   Examples: test case pass rate, syntax validity, code style checks

5. Does it require external tool calls to verify (web search, database lookup)?
   → AgenticGrader (expensive, use only when necessary)
   Examples: fact-checking against live sources, cross-referencing databases
Grader Selection Cheat Sheet
Output typeRecommended graderCost
Classification labelStringMatchGraderFree
JSON structureJsonValidatorGrader + JsonMatchGraderFree
Free text correctnessCorrectnessGraderLLM call
Factual accuracy (grounded)HallucinationGraderLLM call
Response relevanceRelevanceGraderLLM call
Instruction followingInstructionFollowingGraderLLM call
Tool call selectionToolSelectionGraderLLM call
Agent trajectoryTrajectoryAccuracyGraderLLM call
Code correctnessCodeExecutionGraderFree
Custom quality checkCustom LLMGraderLLM call
External fact verificationAgenticGraderLLM + tool calls

Why this order matters: Every LLM-based grader adds cost, latency, and non-determinism. A StringMatchGrader costs nothing and always gives the same answer. Exhaust deterministic options before reaching for an LLM judge.

Step 2: Create Custom Graders

LLMGrader: The Four-Component Template

When no built-in grader fits, create a custom LLMGrader. Every judge prompt needs exactly these four components (adapted from community best practice):

Component 1 — Task & Criterion: What this judge evaluates. One thing only.

You are evaluating whether a customer support response correctly identifies
and uses the customer's order number from the conversation context.

Component 2 — Binary Pass/Fail Definitions: Concrete, observable conditions.

PASS: The response references the correct order number exactly as it appears
in the context. If multiple orders exist, the response addresses the right one.

FAIL: The response uses a wrong order number, omits the order number when one
was provided, or references an order not present in the context.

Why binary and not Likert? Because two human annotators agree on "pass vs fail" far more often than on "3 vs 4 out of 5." Binary forces a clear decision boundary. If you need severity levels, use multiple binary judges (e.g., "factually wrong" + "dangerously wrong").

Component 3 — Few-Shot Examples: At minimum 1 pass, 1 fail, 1 borderline. The borderline example is the most valuable — it teaches the judge where the boundary is.

Example 1 (PASS):
Context: "Order #12345: shipped May 10"
Response: "Your order #12345 was shipped on May 10 and arrives May 12."
Critique: The response uses the exact order number (#12345) and matches the
ship date from context. No fabrication or omission.
Result: Pass

Example 2 (FAIL):
Context: "Order #12345: shipped May 10"
Response: "Your order #12346 is on its way!"
Critique: The response uses order #12346 but the context only mentions #12345.
This is a fabricated order number, not a typo — #12346 doesn't exist.
Result: Fail

Example 3 (BORDERLINE PASS):
Context: "Orders #12345 (shipped), #12346 (processing)"
Response: "Your recent order has shipped and should arrive soon."
Critique: The response doesn't specify which order, but says "recent order"
which could reasonably refer to either. If the customer only asked about
shipped items, this is fine. If they asked about a specific order, it's
insufficient. Given the generic phrasing, this passes but is weak.
Result: Pass

Component 4 — Structured Output: Force critique before verdict.

json
{
  "critique": "Detailed assessment referencing specific evidence from the response and context",
  "result": "Pass" or "Fail"
}

Why critique-before-verdict? LLMs that commit to a verdict first anchor on it and rationalize backward. Reasoning first → verdict second produces more accurate judgments (CoT-then-Score AUC ~0.97 vs verdict-first significantly lower).

Complete LLMGrader Code
python
from openjudge.graders.llm_grader import LLMGrader
from openjudge.graders.schema import GraderMode

order_accuracy_grader = LLMGrader(
    model=model,
    name="order_accuracy",
    mode=GraderMode.POINTWISE,
    template="""
You are evaluating whether a customer support response correctly identifies
and uses the customer's order number from the conversation context.

Context: {context}
Response: {response}

## Pass/Fail Definitions

PASS: The response references the correct order number exactly as it appears
in the context. If multiple orders exist, the response addresses the right one.

FAIL: The response uses a wrong order number, omits the order number when one
was provided, or references an order not present in the context.

## Examples

Example 1 (PASS):
Context: "Order #12345: shipped May 10"
Response: "Your order #12345 was shipped on May 10 and arrives May 12."
Critique: Exact order number match. Ship date matches context. No fabrication.
Result: Pass

Example 2 (FAIL):
Context: "Order #12345: shipped May 10"
Response: "Your order #12346 is on its way!"
Critique: Order #12346 does not exist in context. Fabricated order number.
Result: Fail

Example 3 (BORDERLINE PASS):
Context: "Orders #12345 (shipped), #12346 (processing)"
Response: "Your recent order has shipped and should arrive soon."
Critique: Doesn't specify which order. "Recent order" is ambiguous but not
factually wrong — it acknowledges a shipped order exists.
Result: Pass

## Output Format

Respond in JSON:
{{"critique": "<detailed assessment>", "result": "Pass" or "Fail"}}
""",
)
FunctionGrader: Deterministic Checks

Use when the rule is code-expressible:

python
from openjudge.graders.function_grader import FunctionGrader
from openjudge.graders.schema import GraderScore, GraderMode

def no_competitor_mention(response: str, competitors: list[str] = None) -> GraderScore:
    """Check that response doesn't mention competitor brands."""
    if competitors is None:
        competitors = ["competitor_a", "competitor_b", "rival_co"]
    mentioned = [c for c in competitors if c.lower() in response.lower()]
    if not mentioned:
        return GraderScore(name="no_competitor", score=1.0, reason="No competitor mentions")
    return GraderScore(
        name="no_competitor", score=0.0,
        reason=f"Mentioned competitors: {', '.join(mentioned)}"
    )

competitor_grader = FunctionGrader(
    func=no_competitor_mention,
    name="no_competitor",
    mode=GraderMode.POINTWISE,
)

Step 3: Auto-Generate Graders (Cold Start)

When you have no rubric but do have a task description or labeled data, use OpenJudge Generators to create graders automatically:

Zero-shot: SimpleRubricsGenerator
python
from openjudge.generator.simple_rubric.generator import (
    SimpleRubricsGenerator,
    SimpleRubricsGeneratorConfig,
)

config = SimpleRubricsGeneratorConfig(
    grader_name="Customer Support Quality",
    model=model,
    task_description="Customer support chatbot for e-commerce: orders, returns, shipping",
    scenario="Customers asking about order status, return policies, and delivery times",
    min_score=0,
    max_score=1,
)

generator = SimpleRubricsGenerator(config)
grader = await generator.generate(
    dataset=[],
    sample_queries=[
        "Where is my order?",
        "How do I return this item?",
        "When will my package arrive?",
    ],
)
# grader is now a ready-to-use LLMGrader
Data-driven: IterativeRubricsGenerator

Use when you have 20+ labeled examples (query + response + score):

python
from openjudge.generator.iterative_rubric.generator import (
    IterativeRubricsGenerator,
    IterativePointwiseRubricsGeneratorConfig,
)

config = IterativePointwiseRubricsGeneratorConfig(
    grader_name="E-commerce QA Grader",
    model=model,
    task_description="Evaluate factual answers to e-commerce customer questions",
    min_score=0,
    max_score=1,
    max_epochs=3,
    batch_size=10,
)

train_data = [
    {"query": "What's your return policy?", "response": "30-day returns, free shipping.", "label_score": 1},
    {"query": "What's your return policy?", "response": "We have a policy.", "label_score": 0},
    # ... 20+ examples
]

generator = IterativeRubricsGenerator(config)
grader = await generator.generate(dataset=train_data)

Step 4: Anti-Pattern Scan

Before finalizing, check every LLM-based grader for these issues:

CheckWhat to look forSeverity
Likert scale"rate 1-5", "score 1-10", "Likert" in promptBLOCKER — replace with binary Pass/Fail
Missing few-shotNo labeled examples in the promptBLOCKER — add at least 1 pass + 1 fail + 1 borderline
Holistic criterionSingle judge evaluating 3+ dimensionsWARNING — split into separate graders, one per dimension
Missing output formatNo JSON schema specifiedBLOCKER — add {{"critique": "...", "result": "Pass"/"Fail"}}
Vague pass/fail< 20 words or uses "good"/"bad"/"quality"WARNING — make definitions concrete and observable
Judge = target modelSame model for both rolesBLOCKER — judge and target must be different models

Why blockers matter: A Likert-scale judge with no few-shot examples and a vague criterion produces scores that look precise but can't be reproduced or calibrated. You'll discover this in production when the judge's TPR/TNR is measured — and it's too late.

Show full SKILL.md (403 more words)Show less

Step 5: Build Pipeline Code

First record the design as a metric-plan.yaml so it's reusable and reviewable, then implement it as the runner below:

yaml
dimensions:
  - {id: order_accuracy, grader: CorrectnessGrader, mode: score, weight: 0.4,
     mapper: {response: response, reference_response: reference_response}}
  - {id: no_pii, grader: FunctionGrader, mode: gate, gate_threshold: 1.0}  # hard requirement
aggregation: GatedWeightedSumAggregator

Assemble everything into a working GradingRunner:

python
import asyncio
from openjudge.models.openai_chat_model import OpenAIChatModel
from openjudge.graders.common.correctness import CorrectnessGrader
from openjudge.graders.common.relevance import RelevanceGrader
from openjudge.graders.common.hallucination import HallucinationGrader
from openjudge.graders.text.string_match import StringMatchGrader
from openjudge.runner.grading_runner import GradingRunner, GraderConfig
from openjudge.runner.aggregator.weighted_sum_aggregator import WeightedSumAggregator
from openjudge.graders.schema import GraderScore, GraderError

# Judge model (must differ from the model being evaluated).
# OpenAIChatModel reads OPENAI_API_KEY / OPENAI_BASE_URL from the environment when
# not passed explicitly — point them at any OpenAI-compatible endpoint.
#   OpenAI:          OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-...   (no base_url needed)
#   Aliyun DashScope: OPENAI_API_KEY=<dashscope key>
#                     OPENAI_BASE_URL=https://dashscope.aliyuncs.com/compatible-mode/v1
model = OpenAIChatModel(model="qwen-plus")  # or "gpt-4o", etc.

dataset = [
    {
        "query": "Where is my order #12345?",
        "response": "Your order #12345 shipped May 10, arriving May 12.",
        "reference_response": "Order #12345: shipped May 10, ETA May 12. Tracking: 1Z999AA10123456784.",
        "context": "Order #12345 | Status: shipped | Date: 2026-05-10 | Tracking: 1Z999AA10123456784",
    },
    # ... more samples
]

runner = GradingRunner(
    grader_configs={
        # LLM-based graders for semantic quality
        "correctness": CorrectnessGrader(model=model),
        "relevance": RelevanceGrader(model=model),
        "hallucination": HallucinationGrader(model=model),
        # Deterministic grader — zero cost
        "format_json": GraderConfig(
            grader=StringMatchGrader(algorithm="substring_match"),
            mapper={"response": "response", "reference_response": "reference_response"},
        ),
    },
    # Combine into a single weighted score
    aggregators=WeightedSumAggregator(
        name="overall",
        weights={
            "correctness": 0.4,
            "relevance": 0.2,
            "hallucination": 0.3,
            "format_json": 0.1,
        },
    ),
    max_concurrency=8,
)

async def main():
    results = await runner.arun(dataset)

    for grader_name, grader_results in results.items():
        scores = [r.score for r in grader_results if isinstance(r, GraderScore)]
        errors = [r for r in grader_results if isinstance(r, GraderError)]
        avg = sum(scores) / len(scores) if scores else 0
        print(f"{grader_name}: avg={avg:.3f}, errors={len(errors)}")

asyncio.run(main())
Weight Design Principle

Don't use equal weights — they're the most arbitrary choice. Weights should reflect:

  • Failure prevalence (from trace analysis): if hallucination failures occur 3x more often than relevance failures, weight hallucination higher.
  • Business impact: a correctness failure might cost a customer; a tone failure might slightly annoy them. Weight accordingly.
  • Gating vs scoring: safety/correctness dimensions should be conjunctive gates (must pass), not weighted scores (can be compensated by other dimensions). See the gate pattern below — do not fold a hard requirement (PII, safety, legal) into a WeightedSumAggregator, because a high score elsewhere can mask the violation.
Gates vs weighted scores (conjunctive requirements)

A WeightedSumAggregator lets dimensions compensate each other: a perfect JSON score can drag a PII leak up to "passing." For any requirement that must never be traded off (PII, safety, legal compliance), implement a gate — if it fails, the whole sample fails regardless of the other scores. OpenJudge ships only WeightedSumAggregator, so write a tiny gate aggregator:

python
from typing import Dict
from openjudge.runner.aggregator.base_aggregator import BaseAggregator
from openjudge.runner.aggregator.weighted_sum_aggregator import WeightedSumAggregator
from openjudge.graders.schema import GraderResult, GraderScore

class GatedWeightedSumAggregator(BaseAggregator):
    """Weighted sum that hard-fails (score=0.0) if any gate grader is below threshold.

    gate_graders: grader names that act as conjunctive gates (must pass).
    A gate 'passes' when its score >= gate_threshold.
    """

    def __init__(self, name: str, weights: Dict[str, float],
                 gate_graders: list[str], gate_threshold: float = 1.0):
        super().__init__(name)
        self.gate_graders = gate_graders
        self.gate_threshold = gate_threshold
        # Score only the non-gate dimensions; gates are pass/fail, not weighted.
        self._scorer = WeightedSumAggregator(
            name=name,
            weights={k: v for k, v in weights.items() if k not in gate_graders},
        )

    def __call__(self, grader_results: Dict[str, GraderResult], **kwargs) -> GraderResult:
        for gate in self.gate_graders:
            res = grader_results.get(gate)
            if isinstance(res, GraderScore) and res.score < self.gate_threshold:
                return GraderScore(
                    name=self.name, score=0.0,
                    reason=f"GATE FAILED: {gate}={res.score} (< {self.gate_threshold}). "
                           f"Hard requirement violated; weighted score suppressed.",
                    metadata={"gate_failed": gate},
                )
        # All gates passed → weighted sum of the remaining (compensable) dimensions.
        return self._scorer(grader_results, **kwargs)

# Example: PII leakage is a gate; JSON-field correctness is the compensable score.
runner = GradingRunner(
    grader_configs={
        "fields_present": fields_grader,   # claim_id/status/amount present (deterministic)
        "no_pii": no_pii_grader,           # GATE: 1.0 = clean, 0.0 = PII present
    },
    aggregators=GatedWeightedSumAggregator(
        name="overall",
        weights={"fields_present": 1.0},   # only non-gate dims are weighted
        gate_graders=["no_pii"],           # PII leak ⇒ overall 0.0 no matter what
    ),
    max_concurrency=8,
)

Rule of thumb: if a stakeholder would say "I don't care how good the rest is, this can never ship if X happens," then X is a gate, not a weight.

Common Mistakes

  • All LLM judges, no deterministic checks. Every LLM call adds cost and noise. ~30-50% of evaluation dimensions can be checked with code. Check those first.
  • One judge evaluating 3+ things. A single holistic judge produces unactionable verdicts. "The response scored 3/5" tells you nothing about what to fix. Split into one judge per dimension.
  • Likert scales. "Rate helpfulness 1-5" produces scores that look scientific but can't be calibrated — annotators disagree on 3 vs 4 far more than pass vs fail.
  • No few-shot examples. Without examples, the judge model guesses what "pass" means in your context. The borderline example is the most important one.
  • Judge uses the same model as the target. Self-evaluation bias inflates scores. Always use a different model (or at minimum a different model version).
  • Equal weights for composite scores. Equal weights = "I don't know what matters." Derive weights from failure prevalence or business impact.

Next Skills

After 02-metric-design:

  • 03-align-human: You have graders. Now calibrate TPR/TNR against human labels to know if the automatic evaluation is trustworthy.
  • 04-eval-report: Run evaluation at scale and generate analysis with OpenJudge's DistributionAnalyzer.

© agentscope-ai, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design of agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit d1e0642

Compare with similar skills

Metric Design next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Metric Design compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Metric Design this skillagentscope-ai/OpenJudge871—~5.1kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Commerce Evalsanthropics/commerce-agents3.2k—~1.8kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Advanced Evaluationguanyang/open-agent-hub9772 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Agentic Evalgithub/awesome-copilot40k3 repos~1.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Agent Evalssickn33/agentic-awesome-skills47k2 repos~3.1kAutomated safety check: WarnMIT
Clawpathy AutoresearchClawBio/ClawBio1.2k—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Commerce Evals

    anthropics/commerce-agents

    Official

    Authoring and running behavioral evals for a shopping or merchant agent, covering the case shape, authoring rules, code graders and judges, the run pattern, and poisoned fixtures.

    3.2k GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 9 days ago
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check passed
  • Advanced Evaluation

    guanyang/open-agent-hub

    This skill should be used for advanced LLM evaluation: LLM-as-judge systems, direct scoring, pairwise comparison, rubric calibration, evaluator bias mitigation, confidence scoring, and automated…

    977 GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~4.2k tokens
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check passed
  • Agentic Eval

    github/awesome-copilot

    Official

    Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs.

    40k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~1.5k tokens
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check passed
  • Agent Evals

    sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

    Build automated evaluation suites for AI agents using golden datasets, rubrics, and regression gates.

    47k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.1k tokens
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check: warnings
  • Clawpathy Autoresearch

    ClawBio/ClawBio

    Eval-driven skill tuning. An agent skill from ClawBio/ClawBio.

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated yesterday
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check passed
  • Agentsop Metric Design

    agentsope/SkillAlchemy

    Decomposed, multi-criteria metric design for LLM pipelines. An agent skill from agentsope/SkillAlchemy.

    436 GitHub stars~6.4k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check passed

More from agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

All 19 skills in this repo
  • Align Human

    agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

    A skill your agent uses when the user has a judge/grader and human-labeled data, and wants to measure how well the judge agrees with humans, detect systematic biases, determine whether automatic…

    871 GitHub stars~3.1k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Prompt Regression

    agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

    A skill your agent uses when the user has changed a prompt (system prompt, RAG template, agent instruction, etc.) and wants to know whether the candidate is better or worse than the baseline.

    871 GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • RAG Eval

    agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

    A skill your agent uses when the user has a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) system and wants to evaluate its quality — separating retrieval issues from generation issues.

    871 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Claude Authenticity

    agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

    Detect whether an API endpoint is backed by genuine Claude (not a wrapper, proxy, or impersonator) using 9 weighted rule-based checks that mirror the claude-verify project.

    871 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~5k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Eval Design

    agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

    A skill your agent uses when the user needs to design evaluation datasets, create test cases, stratify samples, generate adversarial examples, extract eval dimensions from traces/specs, or build a…

    871 GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check: warnings
  • Find Skills Combo

    agentscope-ai/OpenJudge

    Discover and recommend combinations of agent skills to complete complex, multi-faceted tasks.

    871 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~4.6k tokens
    Auto-check: warnings

Questions about Metric Design

What does Metric Design do?

A skill your agent uses when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining…. Metric Design is an agent skill from agentscope-ai/OpenJudge. Use when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining multiple metrics into a composite score, or building an automated evaluation pipeline.

When should I use Metric Design?

Metric Design fits situations like: the user has evaluation principles; A dataset but needs help choosing the right graders; designing evaluation metrics; creating LLM-as-judge prompts.

How do I install Metric Design in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design in agentscope-ai/OpenJudge) into .claude/skills/metric-design in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Metric Design in Codex?

Run `npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design in agentscope-ai/OpenJudge) into .agents/skills/metric-design in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Metric Design in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/metric-design, .gemini/skills/metric-design, .github/skills/metric-design and .opencode/skills/metric-design in your project.

What does Metric Design need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Metric Design needs the command-line tools its instructions call (pip) and credentials named OPENAI_API_KEY. Our summary lists: Python 3.

Does Metric Design access the network?

SKILL.md names 1 domain. In commands or code: dashscope.aliyuncs.com; the agent is likely to contact it when it follows the instructions. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Metric Design safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Metric Design use?

Metric Design is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Metric Design use?

About 5.1k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 21k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Metric Design?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Metric Design: Commerce Evals (anthropics/commerce-agents, 3.2k stars), Advanced Evaluation (guanyang/open-agent-hub, 977 stars), Agentic Eval (github/awesome-copilot, 40k stars) and Agent Evals (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Metric Design?

agentscope-ai (a GitHub organization) maintains it in agentscope-ai/OpenJudge, which has 871 GitHub stars. The repository holds 19 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 11, 2026.

Source: agentscope-ai/OpenJudge on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.