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.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Flask Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-flask-eval)
---
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