Use when writing or reviewing a model evaluation report -- accuracy is being quoted alone, or stakeholders need failure modes, segment performance, and business trade-offs made explicit.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add yeaight7/agent-powerups --skill model-evaluation-reporting --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Model Evaluation Reporting?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/yeaight7-model-evaluation-reporting-agent-powerups)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: model-evaluation-reporting
description: Use when writing or reviewing a model evaluation report -- accuracy is being quoted alone, or stakeholders need failure modes, segment performance, and business trade-offs made explicit.
---
## Purpose
Raw accuracy metrics are not enough. Evaluation must reflect the actual business impact and failure modes of the model; this standard turns metrics into a report a stakeholder can act on.
## When to Use
- Producing an evaluation report for a trained model
- Reviewing a report that quotes a single headline metric
- A go/no-go decision depends on understanding error costs
## Inputs
- Model predictions on a held-out set
- Business context: cost of errors, key user/customer segments
## Workflow
1. **Beyond accuracy**: include the confusion matrix; report Precision, Recall, and F1; explain the cost of a False Positive vs a False Negative in the business context.
2. **Slice analysis**: report performance on key segments. A model can be 95% accurate overall but only 40% accurate on new users.
3. **Calibration**: if the model outputs probabilities, verify they are calibrated — a prediction of 0.8 should come true about 80% of the time.
4. **Format as a Markdown report** that a non-technical stakeholder can read, highlighting trade-offs and worst-case scenarios.
## Output
- A Markdown evaluation report: headline metrics, confusion matrix, per-segment table, calibration assessment, and explicit trade-offs/worst cases
## Verification
- [ ] Confusion matrix plus Precision/Recall/F1 present (not accuracy alone)
- [ ] False Positive vs False Negative costs stated in business terms
- [ ] Key segments sliced and reported
- [ ] Calibration assessed whenever probabilities are output
- [ ] Report readable by a non-technical stakeholder
## Failure Modes
- **Headline-metric reporting** — one aggregate number hides segment failures; always include slices.
- **Cost-free framing** — treating FP and FN as equivalent when their business impact differs by orders of magnitude.
- **Uncalibrated probabilities read as confidence** — stakeholders will read 0.8 as "80% sure"; verify calibration before they do.
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!