Evaluates LLMs on fine-grained alignment capabilities by decomposing instruction-following performance into 12 sub-skills across four domains (Logical Thinking, Background Knowledge, Problem Handling, User Alignment). It measures how well models adhere to specific quality criteria like factuality, logical robustness, and harmlessness on a per-instance basis. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FLASK, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports FLASK skill score.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill flask-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Flask Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-flask-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: flask-eval
description: Evaluates LLMs on fine-grained alignment capabilities by decomposing instruction-following performance into 12 sub-skills across four domains (Logical Thinking, Background Knowledge, Problem Handling, User Alignment). It measures how well models adhere to specific quality criteria like factuality, logical robustness, and harmlessness on a per-instance basis. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FLASK, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports FLASK skill score.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2307.10928
bibtex_key: ye2023flask
confidence: high
---
# flask-eval
> FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets — Ye et al. (2023) (arXiv:2307.10928, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates LLMs on fine-grained alignment capabilities by decomposing instruction-following performance into 12 sub-skills across four domains (Logical Thinking, Background Knowledge, Problem Handling, User Alignment). It measures how well models adhere to specific quality criteria like factuality, logical robustness, and harmlessness on a per-instance basis.
## Datasets
- **FLASK** — total ?; splits: test (-1), hard (-1)
## Metrics
- `FLASK skill score` **(primary)** — range: [1, 5]
- Average of per-instance scores across 12 alignment sub-skills (Logical Robustness, Logical Correctness, Logical Efficiency, Factuality, Commonsense, Comprehension, Insightfulness, Completeness, Metacognition, Readability, Conciseness, Harmlessness). Each skill is rated on a 1–5 scale by GPT-4 acting as the evaluator, then averaged across instances.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Instruction-based text prompt requiring a model response.
**Output**: Model-generated text response.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_flask_score(dataset, model, evaluator='GPT-4'):
skill_scores = {skill: [] for skill in SKILLS}
for instance in dataset:
response = model.generate(instance.prompt)
for skill in instance.skills:
score = evaluator.score(response, rubric=skill) # 1-5 scale
skill_scores[skill].append(score)
return {skill: mean(scores) for skill, scores in skill_scores.items()}
```
## Common pitfalls
- GPT-4 as evaluator may exhibit self-preference or style bias, inflating scores for models with similar output patterns.
- Scores on FLASK-HARD can drop by up to 50% compared to the base set, making difficulty calibration critical.
- Averaging across 12 sub-skills can mask severe weaknesses in specific alignment dimensions like Logical Robustness.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We use GPT-4 as the evaluator (Eval LM) for model-based evaluation. Table 9: Comparison of open-source and proprietary models on the whole FLASK evaluation set. The best performance is shown in bold.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{ye2023flask,
title={FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets},
author={Ye et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2307.10928}
}
```
- arXiv: 2307.10928
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!