Files
ECC/skills/agent-eval/SKILL.md
d29cf651c7 fix(skills): declare activation triggers in descriptions and normalize version metadata (#2618)
* fix(skills): move version into metadata and normalize to semver

29 skills declared `version` at the top level of their frontmatter. The
schema reads it from `metadata`, so tooling that follows the schema either
misses it or has to special-case the top level.

Three motion skills also declared `version: 1.0`, which is not a valid
semantic version; normalized to `1.0.0`.

No behavioral change — frontmatter metadata only.

* fix(skills): state activation triggers in skill descriptions

148 skills described what they cover but never named the situation that
should trigger them. Since the description is what Claude matches against
to decide whether to load a skill, a description without a trigger makes
activation guesswork — the skill is either missed or loaded at the wrong
time.

Added a "Use when ..." clause to each, derived from the skill's own body
(most already stated the trigger under "## When to Use" or in the opening
line; that intent is now reflected in the frontmatter where it is actually
read from).

Descriptions were only appended to; no existing wording was removed.

* fix(skills): sync activation triggers into the Codex skill mirror

10 of the skills whose descriptions changed are also mirrored under
`.agents/skills/`, where the description was previously a verbatim copy.
Left alone, the two surfaces would disagree about when the skill applies.

Only the description line is synced; the Codex copies keep their reduced
frontmatter, since that validator accepts only name, description,
metadata, license, and allowed-tools.

* fix(skills): correct three activation clauses from review

- autonomous-loops: the clause pulled new loop work into a skill that its
  own body marks as a compatibility shim retained for one release. It now
  points at the canonical continuous-agent-loop instead.
- continuous-learning: the description carried the v1 routing directive
  twice; collapsed to one.
- homelab-pihole-dns: the clause fired on any broken home DNS. Narrowed to
  tasks that actually involve Pi-hole.

* chore: retain current main lockfile

---------

Co-authored-by: Çağrı Solakoğlu <cagri.solakoglu@vtcenerji.com>
Co-authored-by: haelyra <49814733+haelyra@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-08-11 23:58:14 -04:00

4.6 KiB

name, description, license, metadata, tools
name description license metadata tools
agent-eval Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics. Use when choosing between coding agents, or when a change to an agent setup needs measured pass rate, cost, and time rather than an impression. MIT
origin
ECC
Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob

Agent Eval Skill

A lightweight CLI tool for comparing coding agents head-to-head on reproducible tasks. Every "which coding agent is best?" comparison runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it.

When to Activate

  • Comparing coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on your own codebase
  • Measuring agent performance before adopting a new tool or model
  • Running regression checks when an agent updates its model or tooling
  • Producing data-backed agent selection decisions for a team

Installation

Note: Install agent-eval from its repository after reviewing the source.

Core Concepts

YAML Task Definitions

Define tasks declaratively. Each task specifies what to do, which files to touch, and how to judge success:

name: add-retry-logic
description: Add exponential backoff retry to the HTTP client
repo: ./my-project
files:
  - src/http_client.py
prompt: |
  Add retry logic with exponential backoff to all HTTP requests.
  Max 3 retries. Initial delay 1s, max delay 30s.
judge:
  - type: pytest
    command: pytest tests/test_http_client.py -v
  - type: grep
    pattern: "exponential_backoff|retry"
    files: src/http_client.py
commit: "abc1234"  # pin to specific commit for reproducibility

Git Worktree Isolation

Each agent run gets its own git worktree — no Docker required. This provides reproducibility isolation so agents cannot interfere with each other or corrupt the base repo.

Metrics Collected

Metric What It Measures
Pass rate Did the agent produce code that passes the judge?
Cost API spend per task (when available)
Time Wall-clock seconds to completion
Consistency Pass rate across repeated runs (e.g., 3/3 = 100%)

Workflow

1. Define Tasks

Create a tasks/ directory with YAML files, one per task:

mkdir tasks
# Write task definitions (see template above)

2. Run Agents

Execute agents against your tasks:

agent-eval run --task tasks/add-retry-logic.yaml --agent claude-code --agent aider --runs 3

Each run:

  1. Creates a fresh git worktree from the specified commit
  2. Hands the prompt to the agent
  3. Runs the judge criteria
  4. Records pass/fail, cost, and time

3. Compare Results

Generate a comparison report:

agent-eval report --format table
Task: add-retry-logic (3 runs each)
┌──────────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────────┐
│ Agent        │ Pass Rate │ Cost   │ Time   │ Consistency │
├──────────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────────┤
│ claude-code  │ 3/3       │ $0.12  │ 45s    │ 100%        │
│ aider        │ 2/3       │ $0.08  │ 38s    │  67%        │
└──────────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴─────────────┘

Judge Types

Code-Based (deterministic)

judge:
  - type: pytest
    command: pytest tests/ -v
  - type: command
    command: npm run build

Pattern-Based

judge:
  - type: grep
    pattern: "class.*Retry"
    files: src/**/*.py

Model-Based (LLM-as-judge)

judge:
  - type: llm
    prompt: |
      Does this implementation correctly handle exponential backoff?
      Check for: max retries, increasing delays, jitter.

Best Practices

  • Start with 3-5 tasks that represent your real workload, not toy examples
  • Run at least 3 trials per agent to capture variance — agents are non-deterministic
  • Pin the commit in your task YAML so results are reproducible across days/weeks
  • Include at least one deterministic judge (tests, build) per task — LLM judges add noise
  • Track cost alongside pass rate — a 95% agent at 10x the cost may not be the right choice
  • Version your task definitions — they are test fixtures, treat them as code