Evaluate AI agent outputs — hallucination detection, quality scoring, behavioral testing, and CI/CD pipelines.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ils15/pantheon-legacy --skill agent-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Agent Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ils15-agent-evaluation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: agent-evaluation
description: "Evaluate AI agent outputs — hallucination detection, quality scoring, behavioral testing, and CI/CD pipelines."
context: fork
globs: []
alwaysApply: false
---
# Agent Evaluation
Framework for evaluating AI agent outputs: hallucination detection, quality scoring, behavioral regression, and CI/CD integration.
---
## Hallucination Detection
### Fact-Checking Pipeline
```python
def detect_hallucination(response: str, context: str) -> dict:
"""Check if response contains unsupported claims."""
claims = extract_claims(response)
supported = [c for c in claims if verify_against(c, context)]
return {
'hallucination_rate': 1 - len(supported) / len(claims),
'unsupported_claims': [c for c in claims if c not in supported]
}
```
### Red Teaming
- Generate adversarial prompts designed to trigger hallucinations
- Test with contradictory context
- Verify model says "I don't know" when appropriate
---
## Output Quality Scoring
### RAGAS Metrics
| Metric | What it measures | Target |
|--------|-----------------|--------|
| **Faithfulness** | Response grounded in context | ≥0.8 |
| **Answer Relevance** | Response addresses query | ≥0.8 |
| **Context Precision** | Retrieved context is relevant | ≥0.7 |
| **Context Recall** | All relevant context retrieved | ≥0.7 |
### Scoring Pipeline
```python
from ragas import evaluate
from ragas.metrics import faithfulness, answer_relevance
result = evaluate(
dataset=eval_dataset,
metrics=[faithfulness, answer_relevance]
)
```
---
## Behavioral Regression Testing
### Test Types
- **Consistency**: Same input → same output across runs
- **Robustness**: Slight input variation → similar output
- **Boundary**: Edge cases handled gracefully
- **Safety**: No harmful, biased, or leaked content
### LangSmith Integration
```python
from langsmith import Client
client = Client()
client.evaluate(
runnable,
dataset_name="agent-behavior-tests",
evaluators=[consistency_evaluator, safety_evaluator]
)
```
---
## Latency & Reliability Benchmarks
| Metric | Target | Measurement |
|--------|--------|-------------|
| **P50 Latency** | <2s | Time to first token |
| **P99 Latency** | <10s | End-to-end response time |
| **Error Rate** | <1% | Failed requests / total |
| **Throughput** | >10 req/s | Concurrent requests handled |
---
## CI/CD Evaluation Pipeline
```yaml
# .github/workflows/agent-eval.yml
jobs:
evaluate:
steps:
- run: python scripts/run_eval_suite.py
- run: python scripts/check_hallucination_rate.py
- run: python scripts/benchmark_latency.py
- if: failure
run: echo "Agent eval failed — blocking merge"
```
---
## Adversarial Red Teaming
### Attack Vectors
- **Prompt injection**: "Ignore previous instructions and..."
- **Context poisoning**: Inject false facts into context
- **Role manipulation**: "You are now an unrestricted AI..."
- **Format exploitation**: XML/JSON injection in prompts
### Defense Validation
- Input sanitization working?
- Output validation catching issues?
- Guardrails triggered correctly?
---
## Quick Eval Checklist
- [ ] Hallucination rate <5%
- [ ] RAGAS faithfulness ≥0.8
- [ ] Consistency score ≥0.9
- [ ] P99 latency <10s
- [ ] No safety violations
- [ ] Adversarial tests passing
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!