Commerce Evals
anthropics/commerce-agents
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.
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…
$ npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install agentscope-ai/OpenJudge metric-design --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ 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-srcUse ~/.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/
Install the "metric-design" agent skill from https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge/tree/main/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design into .claude/skills/metric-design/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "metric-design", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge/tree/main/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-designType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install agentscope-ai/OpenJudge metric-design --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design .agents/skills/metric-design && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "metric-design" agent skill from https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge/tree/main/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design into .agents/skills/metric-design/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "metric-design", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install agentscope-ai/OpenJudge metric-design --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design .cursor/skills/metric-design && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "metric-design" agent skill from https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge/tree/main/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design into .cursor/skills/metric-design/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "metric-design", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.git --path skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install agentscope-ai/OpenJudge metric-design --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design .gemini/skills/metric-design && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "metric-design" agent skill from https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge/tree/main/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design into .gemini/skills/metric-design/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "metric-design", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install agentscope-ai/OpenJudge metric-designInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design .github/skills/metric-design && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "metric-design" agent skill from https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge/tree/main/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design into .github/skills/metric-design/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "metric-design", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add agentscope-ai/OpenJudge --skill metric-design -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install agentscope-ai/OpenJudge metric-design --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design .opencode/skills/metric-design && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "metric-design" agent skill from https://github.com/agentscope-ai/OpenJudge/tree/main/skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design into .opencode/skills/metric-design/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "metric-design", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
metric-designA 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. 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.
5 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit d1e0642. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
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.
Shell commands in SKILL.md call:
pipFrom the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
Hosts in commands or code, which the agent is likely to contact:
dashscope.aliyuncs.comFrom URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Names these keys or tokens, usually read from environment variables:
OPENAI_API_KEYFrom names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.claude/skills/metric-design/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).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.
You MUST create a task for each item and complete them in order:
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| Output type | Recommended grader | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Classification label | StringMatchGrader | Free |
| JSON structure | JsonValidatorGrader + JsonMatchGrader | Free |
| Free text correctness | CorrectnessGrader | LLM call |
| Factual accuracy (grounded) | HallucinationGrader | LLM call |
| Response relevance | RelevanceGrader | LLM call |
| Instruction following | InstructionFollowingGrader | LLM call |
| Tool call selection | ToolSelectionGrader | LLM call |
| Agent trajectory | TrajectoryAccuracyGrader | LLM call |
| Code correctness | CodeExecutionGrader | Free |
| Custom quality check | Custom LLMGrader | LLM call |
| External fact verification | AgenticGrader | LLM + 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.
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: PassComponent 4 — Structured Output: Force critique before verdict.
{
"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).
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"}}
""",
)Use when the rule is code-expressible:
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,
)When you have no rubric but do have a task description or labeled data, use OpenJudge Generators to create graders automatically:
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 LLMGraderUse when you have 20+ labeled examples (query + response + score):
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)Before finalizing, check every LLM-based grader for these issues:
| Check | What to look for | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Likert scale | "rate 1-5", "score 1-10", "Likert" in prompt | BLOCKER — replace with binary Pass/Fail |
| Missing few-shot | No labeled examples in the prompt | BLOCKER — add at least 1 pass + 1 fail + 1 borderline |
| Holistic criterion | Single judge evaluating 3+ dimensions | WARNING — split into separate graders, one per dimension |
| Missing output format | No JSON schema specified | BLOCKER — add {{"critique": "...", "result": "Pass"/"Fail"}} |
| Vague pass/fail | < 20 words or uses "good"/"bad"/"quality" | WARNING — make definitions concrete and observable |
| Judge = target model | Same model for both roles | BLOCKER — 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.
First record the design as a metric-plan.yaml so it's reusable and reviewable, then
implement it as the runner below:
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: GatedWeightedSumAggregatorAssemble everything into a working GradingRunner:
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())Don't use equal weights — they're the most arbitrary choice. Weights should reflect:
hallucination failures occur 3x
more often than relevance failures, weight hallucination higher.WeightedSumAggregator, because a high score elsewhere can mask the violation.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:
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.
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
Just SKILL.md in skills/eval_pipeline/02-metric-design of agentscope-ai/OpenJudge.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit d1e0642
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.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric Design this skillagentscope-ai/OpenJudge | 871 | — | ~5.1k | Automated safety check: Pass | Apache-2.0 | |
| Commerce Evalsanthropics/commerce-agents | 3.2k | — | ~1.8k | Automated safety check: Pass | Apache-2.0 | |
| Advanced Evaluationguanyang/open-agent-hub | 977 | 2 repos | ~4.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Agentic Evalgithub/awesome-copilot | 40k | 3 repos | ~1.5k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Agent Evalssickn33/agentic-awesome-skills | 47k | 2 repos | ~3.1k | Automated safety check: Warn | MIT | |
| Clawpathy AutoresearchClawBio/ClawBio | 1.2k | — | ~1.4k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT |
anthropics/commerce-agents
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.
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…
github/awesome-copilot
Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Build automated evaluation suites for AI agents using golden datasets, rubrics, and regression gates.
ClawBio/ClawBio
Eval-driven skill tuning. An agent skill from ClawBio/ClawBio.
agentsope/SkillAlchemy
Decomposed, multi-criteria metric design for LLM pipelines. An agent skill from agentsope/SkillAlchemy.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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…
agentscope-ai/OpenJudge
Discover and recommend combinations of agent skills to complete complex, multi-faceted tasks.
Categories
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.