Evaluation Methodology Archaeology Campaign — 5 strategies for systematic analysis of AI/ML benchmarks, metrics, and leaderboards. Reveals construct validity issues, saturation, data contamination, and evaluation protocol inconsistencies.
Scanned 6/1/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill benchmark-archaeology --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Benchmark Archaeology?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/yogsoth-ai-benchmark-archaeology)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: benchmark-archaeology
description: Evaluation Methodology Archaeology Campaign — 5 strategies for systematic analysis of AI/ML benchmarks, metrics, and leaderboards. Reveals construct validity issues, saturation, data contamination, and evaluation protocol inconsistencies.
execution: campaign
used-by: knowledge-acquisition
---
# Benchmark Archaeology
Systematic excavation and critical analysis of AI/ML evaluation methodology. Treats benchmarks as historical artifacts requiring forensic examination — uncovering hidden assumptions, methodological drift, validity decay, and coverage gaps that accumulate over time.
## Strategy Routing
| Signal | Route To |
|--------|----------|
| "audit this benchmark", "benchmark quality", "BetterBench" | benchmark-audit |
| "saturation", "ceiling", "score plateau", "when will X be solved" | saturation-analysis |
| "does it actually measure", "construct validity", "what does score mean" | validity-probing |
| "what's not tested", "coverage gaps", "missing capabilities" | coverage-mapping |
| "different papers get different scores", "protocol differences" | protocol-forensics |
## Manifest
### Strategies (5)
| Strategy | Purpose |
|----------|---------|
| benchmark-audit | Systematic quality assessment using BetterBench 46-criterion framework |
| saturation-analysis | Track score trajectories, detect saturation and failure points |
| validity-probing | Challenge construct validity — does benchmark measure claimed capability? |
| coverage-mapping | Map evaluation coverage, identify untested capability dimensions |
| protocol-forensics | Analyze evaluation protocol differences across papers for same benchmark |
### Tactics (3)
| Tactic | Purpose |
|--------|---------|
| score-trajectory-analysis | Collect historical scores, fit saturation curves, detect inflection points |
| artifact-detection | Detect annotation artifacts and shortcuts in benchmarks |
| evaluation-protocol-comparison | Compare implementation differences of same benchmark across papers |
### Subagent SOPs (9 + 1 shared)
| SOP | Purpose |
|-----|---------|
| benchmark-inventory | Identify and catalog all relevant benchmarks in target domain |
| metric-decomposition | Decompose composite metrics into constituent signals |
| contamination-audit | Detect train-test data leakage and memorization artifacts |
| construct-validity-assessment | Evaluate whether benchmark measures its claimed capability |
| documentation-audit | Assess documentation completeness against BetterBench/Datasheets standards |
| capability-taxonomy-mapping | Build capability taxonomy, map existing benchmark coverage |
| leaderboard-dynamics-analysis | Analyze leaderboard score distributions, compression, selective reporting |
| protocol-element-extraction | Extract evaluation protocol parameters from papers |
| benchmark-synthesis | Produce final structured audit report |
| saturation-detection (shared) | Detect saturation signals in score trajectories (from literature-survey) |
## Budget Table
| Strategy | Benchmarks | Papers | Web Searches |
|----------|-----------|--------|--------------|
| benchmark-audit | 5 | 30 | 40 |
| saturation-analysis | 15 | 50 | 60 |
| validity-probing | 3 | 40 | 30 |
| coverage-mapping | 20 | 30 | 50 |
| protocol-forensics | 5 | 60 | 30 |
| **Total** | **48** | **210** | **210** |
## MCP Tools
| MCP Server | Tools |
|------------|-------|
| brave-search | brave_web_search, brave_llm_context |
| apify | rag-web-browser, google-scholar-scraper |
| alphaxiv | get_paper_content, answer_pdf_queries |
| semantic-scholar | ss_paper, ss_relevance_search, ss_citations, ss_references |
## Context Management
All outputs write to `context/benchmark-archaeology/`:
```
context/benchmark-archaeology/
audit/ # benchmark-audit outputs
saturation/ # saturation-analysis outputs
validity/ # validity-probing outputs
coverage/ # coverage-mapping outputs
forensics/ # protocol-forensics outputs
synthesis/ # Final cross-strategy synthesis
```
Each strategy maintains its own state ledger within its output directory.
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!