`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: use when Skill changes need baseline/treatment evidence for routing, defects, or regressions; skip without an efficacy claim.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add machenjie/rd-skills --skill skill-efficacy-benchmark --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Skill Efficacy Benchmark?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/machenjie-skill-efficacy-benchmark)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: skill-efficacy-benchmark
description: "`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: use when Skill changes need baseline/treatment evidence for routing, defects, or regressions; skip without an efficacy claim."
---
# skill-efficacy-benchmark
## Registry Trigger
**Use when**
- skill efficacy benchmark baseline treatment agent behavior improvement claim routing quality evidence quality review defects token overhead turn overhead over routing under routing
- eval fixture professional benchmark skill benchmark no baseline unsupported efficacy claim skill authoring validation behavior regression
**Do not use when**
- no task-local skill efficacy benchmark decision is required
## Skill Role
Evaluate whether a Skill, Profile, route, Reference, or benchmark improves agent behavior. Compare the same task under baseline and treatment using defects, routing, evidence quality, and overhead.
## High-Value Rules
- Reject real-world efficacy claims without representative baseline and treatment evidence for the same task.
- Classify missing-baseline evidence as `structural-only` with final verdict `not_enough_evidence` and no empirical or real-world efficacy claim.
- Define each benchmark's task, baseline, treatment, metrics, verdict, caveats, and reproducible input boundary.
- Measure token and turn overhead or record them as not collected rather than omitting the limitation.
- Separate structural fixture validation from empirical agent behavior when stating what the evidence proves.
- Measure over-routing and under-routing risk as well as selected-task success.
- When references form the treatment, select an explicit required allow-list and reject an unbounded catalog treatment.
- Classify changed Skill, Profile, routing, reference, validation, and benchmark surfaces as behavioral unless current evidence proves docs-only impact.
## Anti-Patterns
- A benchmark can be useful even when overhead is `not_collected`; the caveat must be explicit.
- A structural fixture validates schema and evaluation plumbing, not live agent productivity.
- The unit of comparison is the same task under baseline and treatment conditions.
- `structural-only` is an evidence class; missing baseline has final verdict `not_enough_evidence`, while `unknown` requires a valid but nondiscriminating comparison.
- Benchmark reports should name what changed, what improved, what did not, and what remains unmeasured.
## Stop Conditions
- Escalate when a change makes an empirical efficacy claim without baseline/treatment data.
- Escalate when a fixture passes by matching keywords but does not test the professional behavior claimed.
- Escalate when token or turn overhead is omitted.
- Escalate when routing improvements hide over-routing drag or under-routing safety gaps.
- Escalate when benchmark data includes raw prompts, secrets, user-specific source material, or unbounded command output.
## Output Contract
- Return a Skill Efficacy Benchmark: evidence class, available baseline/treatment comparison, metrics, token/turn overhead, routing errors, final verdict, caveats, and regression command
## Targeted References
| Path | Type | Load when | Do not load when | Required by | Required output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [benchmarks and patterns](references/benchmarks-and-patterns.md) | benchmark-pattern | treatment and baseline agent behavior need a comparable benchmark design | no Skill efficacy comparison or behavior benchmark is requested | analysis-agent, task-agent, review-agent | option-comparison, selected-approach |
| [checklist](references/checklist.md) | decision-checklist | an efficacy evaluation needs routing behavior pressure and regression coverage | the benchmark design and required coverage are already fixed | analysis-agent, task-agent, review-agent | checklist-result, residual-risk |
| [evidence patterns](references/evidence-patterns.md) | evidence-pattern | an efficacy assertion requires reproducible treatment baseline and negative-control proof | no comparative Skill efficacy claim will be made | analysis-agent, task-agent, review-agent | evidence-record, proof-limit, residual-risk |
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!