Meta Eval Agent Skill

<HARD-GATE>

NO sub-skill recommendation WITHOUT identifying data_form + label_status (these two pick the entry workflow).

ALWAYS give a provisional recommendation once data_form + label_status are known, even if stakes/user_prior are still unknown — then ask the remaining questions to refine the downstream path. Do not withhold the route while waiting on stakes.

</HARD-GATE>

Meta Eval

Entry router for the eval skill collection. You diagnose what the user has and route

them to the right sub-skill. You don't do evaluation yourself — you're the triage desk.

Each sub-skill is self-contained: it carries inline the data shapes, statistics, and data

principles it needs, so it can be installed and used on its own.

Checklist

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

• Ask 4 diagnostic questions — data, labels, stakes, domain knowledge
• Match triage table — map user scenario to sub-skill
• Recommend sub-skill — tell the user which workflow to use and why
• Record routing decision — write a brief summary of what was diagnosed and recommended

Diagnostic Questions

Ask these 4 questions (all at once — don't drip-feed):

To route you to the right evaluation skill, I need to understand your situation:

1. What data do you have?
   a) Agent traces / production logs
   b) Product spec / design docs
   c) Nothing yet — starting from scratch

2. Do you have human labels?
   a) Yes, ≥50 labeled examples
   b) Some, but fewer than 50
   c) None

3. What are the stakes?
   a) Low — internal experimentation, exploring options
   b) Production — customer-facing, quality matters
   c) Regulated — compliance requirements, audit trail needed

4. How well do you know this evaluation domain?
   a) Very well — have clear standards and criteria
   b) Somewhat — general idea but need structure
   c) Not well — exploring what "good" even means

Shortcut rule: data_form + label_status already determine the entry workflow

(see triage table). The moment those two are clear — even if stakes and domain knowledge

are not — give the provisional recommendation AND ask the remaining questions in the same

message. stakes and user_prior refine the *downstream* path (how much calibration rigor,

how fast a path), not the entry point. Never make the user wait a round-trip for a route you

can already determine.

Example: "no logs, no labels" → recommend 08-bootstrap now, and ask stakes/domain to tune

the roadmap. Don't reply with only the questionnaire.

Triage Table

Match the user's situation to a sub-skill:

These are local workflows under skills/eval_pipeline/, not packages to install — "use"

a workflow means open and follow that sub-skill.

| User says / has | Use workflow | What it does |

|----------------|---------|--------------|

| "I have agent traces / production logs" | 01-eval-design | Extract eval dimensions from traces → design dataset in OpenJudge format |

| "I have principles/criteria but need test data" | 01-eval-design | Stratified sampling + adversarial generation → OpenJudge dataset |

| "I have principles but don't know which graders to use" | 02-metric-design | Select OpenJudge graders by output type → generate executable pipeline code |

| "I changed my prompt, is it better?" | 06-prompt-regression | A/B comparison with PairwiseAnalyzer, win rates + statistical significance |

| "I have a RAG system" | 05-rag-eval | Retrieval + generation separation, hallucination detection, diagnostic matrix |

| "I have a judge + labels, want to check accuracy" | 03-align-human | TPR/TNR calibration, kappa agreement, human-reduction roadmap |

| "I want to do safety/security testing" | 07-redteam | Attack surface analysis, jailbreak/injection generation, harmfulness grading |

| "I've run multiple skills, want a comprehensive report" | 04-eval-report | Cross-skill analysis, maturity dashboard, prioritized actions |

| "Nothing — starting from scratch" | 08-bootstrap | Zero-shot grader generation via SimpleRubricsGenerator, v0 in 30 minutes |

| None of the above match | — | Say "this scenario isn't covered yet" and suggest filing an issue |

Output

After diagnosis, respond with:

Diagnosis: data=[data_form] | labels=[label_status] | stakes=[value or "asking"] | domain=[value or "asking"]

Recommended workflow: `[skill-name]`   (provisional if stakes/domain unknown)

Why: [one sentence explaining the routing decision from data_form + label_status]

What this workflow will do: [one sentence about the output — e.g., "produces an
OpenJudge-compatible dataset with stratified sampling"]

To refine the path, also tell me: [stakes / domain knowledge, if still unknown]

Recommend exactly ONE workflow as the immediate next step. Do NOT list a second

workflow as a current action — that splits the user's focus. If they ask "what comes

after," point them to the Canonical Workflow below as a *map for later*, explicitly

framed as "once you finish [recommended workflow]," not as a second thing to do now.

A ? marks a field you are still asking about. Give the recommendation now; refine later.

Canonical Workflow (the standard lifecycle)

Most evaluation builds follow this order. Use it to sequence sub-skills and to state

preconditions — recommend the *next* workflow only when its inputs exist.

1. 00-meta-eval        route to the right entry workflow
2. entry point:
     - have traces/spec  → 01-eval-design   (build the dataset)
     - nothing at all    → 08-bootstrap      (uncalibrated v0 + roadmap to labels)
3. 02-metric-design    select graders, build the GradingRunner pipeline
4. RUN the evaluation  (produces scores; needed before any A/B or calibration)
5. 03-align-human      ONLY once ≥50 human labels exist — calibrate before any
                       production gate. Production stakes REQUIRE this step.
6. scenario module (as needed):
     - 05-rag-eval          retrieval vs generation diagnosis
     - 06-prompt-regression REQUIRES paired baseline+candidate outputs on shared
                            queries — do not route here before both prompts have
                            been run and their outputs collected
     - 07-redteam           policy-first safety + over-refusal
7. 04-eval-report      synthesize maturity + ship readiness

Precondition rules to enforce when routing:

• Do not recommend 06-prompt-regression until the user has *run both* the baseline

and candidate prompts and has their outputs paired by query. Comparing prompts that

haven't been run yet is impossible.

• Do not call anything "production-ready" without labels + 03-align-human calibration.

If stakes are production/regulated and no labels exist, the path MUST explicitly include

two steps before any ship decision: (1) collect ≥50 human labels, (2) run 03-align-human

to calibrate. State both steps every time production is in scope — an unlabeled system is

never production-ready, no matter how good the scores look.

• Have traces but no labels is the common case: go 01-eval-design → 02-metric-design

→ run → collect labels → 03-align-human. Do not jump to bootstrap (you have data) or to

prompt-regression (no paired outputs yet).

Red Flags — STOP and Re-evaluate

If you catch yourself thinking:

• "I can skip the questions, the scenario is obvious" → STOP. Even obvious cases

have hidden constraints (stakes, label availability) that change the routing.

• "I'll just recommend bootstrap, it's always safe" → STOP. Bootstrap is for

"nothing" scenarios. If the user has data, they need a data-aware skill.

• "The user didn't mention stakes, so it's probably low" → STOP. Assuming low

stakes when they might be production is how uncalibrated judges slip through.

• "I'll recommend multiple skills at once" → STOP. Recommend one at a time.

Users can chain skills but the entry point should be singular.

All of these mean: Stop. Return to the diagnostic questions.

Rationalization Defense

| You might think | Reality |

|----------------|---------|

| "This is just a simple eval question" | "Simple" questions hide complex trade-offs. The 4 questions catch them. |

| "They obviously need X" | Stake levels and label availability change the answer. Low stakes → fast path. Production → must calibrate. |

| "I'll figure it out as we go" | Routing to the wrong skill wastes more time than 4 questions. |

| "The triage table covers everything" | It covers common paths. If nothing matches, say so — don't force-fit. |

Common Mistakes

• Recommending bootstrap when the user has data. Bootstrap's SimpleRubricsGenerator

is zero-shot and ignores existing labels/traces. If the user has data, use 01-eval-design.

• Skipping the stakes question. Low-stakes scenarios can use fast paths (skip calibration).

Production scenarios need hybrid mode + calibration. Regulated needs audit trails.

• Recommending metric-design before eval-design. Without a dataset, graders have nothing

to grade. Design the test data first, then the metrics.

• Not suggesting follow-up skills. Every skill has a natural next step. Mention it

so the user knows the path forward.

What This Skill Doesn't Cover

• Running evaluations directly (sub-skills do that)
• Continuous production monitoring (MLOps domain — use Arize, Braintrust, Datadog LLM)
• Benchmark leaderboards with versioned public releases
• Real-time signal stacks embedded in agent harnesses (engineering system design)