llm-evaluation
Implement comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications using automated metrics, human feedback, and benchmarking. Use when testing LLM performance, measuring AI application quality, or establishing evaluation frameworks.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents/tree/main/plugins/llm-application-dev/skills/llm-evaluation
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install wshobson-agents@llmmart
git clone https://github.com/wshobson/agents.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole wshobson/agents collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
LLM Evaluation
Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.
When to Use This Skill
- Measuring LLM application performance systematically
- Comparing different models or prompts
- Detecting performance regressions before deployment
- Validating improvements from prompt changes
- Building confidence in production systems
- Establishing baselines and tracking progress over time
- Debugging unexpected model behavior
Core Evaluation Types
1. Automated Metrics
Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores.
Text Generation:
- BLEU: N-gram overlap (translation)
- ROUGE: Recall-oriented (summarization)
- METEOR: Semantic similarity
- BERTScore: Embedding-based similarity
- Perplexity: Language model confidence
Classification:
- Accuracy: Percentage correct
- Precision/Recall/F1: Class-specific performance
- Confusion Matrix: Error patterns
- AUC-ROC: Ranking quality
Retrieval (RAG):
- MRR: Mean Reciprocal Rank
- NDCG: Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain
- Precision@K: Relevant in top K
- Recall@K: Coverage in top K
2. Human Evaluation
Manual assessment for quality aspects difficult to automate.
Dimensions:
- Accuracy: Factual correctness
- Coherence: Logical flow
- Relevance: Answers the question
- Fluency: Natural language quality
- Safety: No harmful content
- Helpfulness: Useful to the user
3. LLM-as-Judge
Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs.
Approaches:
- Pointwise: Score individual responses
- Pairwise: Compare two responses
- Reference-based: Compare to gold standard
- Reference-free: Judge without ground truth
Quick Start
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Callable
import numpy as np
@dataclass
class Metric:
name: str
fn: Callable
@staticmethod
def accuracy():
return Metric("accuracy", calculate_accuracy)
@staticmethod
def bleu():
return Metric("bleu", calculate_bleu)
@staticmethod
def bertscore():
return Metric("bertscore", calculate_bertscore)
@staticmethod
def custom(name: str, fn: Callable):
return Metric(name, fn)
class EvaluationSuite:
def __init__(self, metrics: list[Metric]):
self.metrics = metrics
async def evaluate(self, model, test_cases: list[dict]) -> dict:
results = {m.name: [] for m in self.metrics}
for test in test_cases:
prediction = await model.predict(test["input"])
for metric in self.metrics:
score = metric.fn(
prediction=prediction,
reference=test.get("expected"),
context=test.get("context")
)
results[metric.name].append(score)
return {
"metrics": {k: np.mean(v) for k, v in results.items()},
"raw_scores": results
}
# Usage
suite = EvaluationSuite([
Metric.accuracy(),
Metric.bleu(),
Metric.bertscore(),
Metric.custom("groundedness", check_groundedness)
])
test_cases = [
{
"input": "What is the capital of France?",
"expected": "Paris",
"context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital."
},
]
results = await suite.evaluate(model=your_model, test_cases=test_cases)
Detailed patterns and worked examples
Detailed pattern documentation lives in references/details.md. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.
Files (agents)
-
references
-
details.md 13.7 KB
# llm-evaluation — detailed patterns and worked examples ## Automated Metrics Implementation ### BLEU Score ```python from nltk.translate.bleu_score import sentence_bleu, SmoothingFunction def calculate_bleu(reference: str, hypothesis: str, **kwargs) -> float: """Calculate BLEU score between reference and hypothesis.""" smoothie = SmoothingFunction().method4 return sentence_bleu( [reference.split()], hypothesis.split(), smoothing_function=smoothie ) ``` ### ROUGE Score ```python from rouge_score import rouge_scorer def calculate_rouge(reference: str, hypothesis: str, **kwargs) -> dict: """Calculate ROUGE scores.""" scorer = rouge_scorer.RougeScorer( ['rouge1', 'rouge2', 'rougeL'], use_stemmer=True ) scores = scorer.score(reference, hypothesis) return { 'rouge1': scores['rouge1'].fmeasure, 'rouge2': scores['rouge2'].fmeasure, 'rougeL': scores['rougeL'].fmeasure } ``` ### BERTScore ```python from bert_score import score def calculate_bertscore( references: list[str], hypotheses: list[str], **kwargs ) -> dict: """Calculate BERTScore using pre-trained model.""" P, R, F1 = score( hypotheses, references, lang='en', model_type='microsoft/deberta-xlarge-mnli' ) return { 'precision': P.mean().item(), 'recall': R.mean().item(), 'f1': F1.mean().item() } ``` ### Custom Metrics ```python def calculate_groundedness(response: str, context: str, **kwargs) -> float: """Check if response is grounded in provided context.""" from transformers import pipeline nli = pipeline( "text-classification", model="microsoft/deberta-large-mnli" ) result = nli(f"{context} [SEP] {response}")[0] # Return confidence that response is entailed by context return result['score'] if result['label'] == 'ENTAILMENT' else 0.0 def calculate_toxicity(text: str, **kwargs) -> float: """Measure toxicity in generated text.""" from detoxify import Detoxify results = Detoxify('original').predict(text) return max(results.values()) # Return highest toxicity score def calculate_factuality(claim: str, sources: list[str], **kwargs) -> float: """Verify factual claims against sources.""" from transformers import pipeline nli = pipeline("text-classification", model="facebook/bart-large-mnli") scores = [] for source in sources: result = nli(f"{source}</s></s>{claim}")[0] if result['label'] == 'entailment': scores.append(result['score']) return max(scores) if scores else 0.0 ``` ## LLM-as-Judge Patterns ### Single Output Evaluation ```python from anthropic import Anthropic from pydantic import BaseModel, Field import json class QualityRating(BaseModel): accuracy: int = Field(ge=1, le=10, description="Factual correctness") helpfulness: int = Field(ge=1, le=10, description="Answers the question") clarity: int = Field(ge=1, le=10, description="Well-written and understandable") reasoning: str = Field(description="Brief explanation") async def llm_judge_quality( response: str, question: str, context: str = None ) -> QualityRating: """Use Claude to judge response quality.""" client = Anthropic() system = """You are an expert evaluator of AI responses. Rate responses on accuracy, helpfulness, and clarity (1-10 scale). Provide brief reasoning for your ratings.""" prompt = f"""Rate the following response: Question: {question} {f'Context: {context}' if context else ''} Response: {response} Provide ratings in JSON format: {{ "accuracy": <1-10>, "helpfulness": <1-10>, "clarity": <1-10>, "reasoning": "<brief explanation>" }}""" message = client.messages.create( model="claude-sonnet-5", max_tokens=500, system=system, messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}] ) return QualityRating(**json.loads(message.content[0].text)) ``` ### Pairwise Comparison ```python from pydantic import BaseModel, Field from typing import Literal class ComparisonResult(BaseModel): winner: Literal["A", "B", "tie"] reasoning: str confidence: int = Field(ge=1, le=10) async def compare_responses( question: str, response_a: str, response_b: str ) -> ComparisonResult: """Compare two responses using LLM judge.""" client = Anthropic() prompt = f"""Compare these two responses and determine which is better. Question: {question} Response A: {response_a} Response B: {response_b} Consider accuracy, helpfulness, and clarity. Answer with JSON: {{ "winner": "A" or "B" or "tie", "reasoning": "<explanation>", "confidence": <1-10> }}""" message = client.messages.create( model="claude-sonnet-5", max_tokens=500, messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}] ) return ComparisonResult(**json.loads(message.content[0].text)) ``` ### Reference-Based Evaluation ```python class ReferenceEvaluation(BaseModel): semantic_similarity: float = Field(ge=0, le=1) factual_accuracy: float = Field(ge=0, le=1) completeness: float = Field(ge=0, le=1) issues: list[str] async def evaluate_against_reference( response: str, reference: str, question: str ) -> ReferenceEvaluation: """Evaluate response against gold standard reference.""" client = Anthropic() prompt = f"""Compare the response to the reference answer. Question: {question} Reference Answer: {reference} Response to Evaluate: {response} Evaluate: 1. Semantic similarity (0-1): How similar is the meaning? 2. Factual accuracy (0-1): Are all facts correct? 3. Completeness (0-1): Does it cover all key points? 4. List any specific issues or errors. Respond in JSON: {{ "semantic_similarity": <0-1>, "factual_accuracy": <0-1>, "completeness": <0-1>, "issues": ["issue1", "issue2"] }}""" message = client.messages.create( model="claude-sonnet-5", max_tokens=500, messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}] ) return ReferenceEvaluation(**json.loads(message.content[0].text)) ``` ## Human Evaluation Frameworks ### Annotation Guidelines ```python from dataclasses import dataclass, field from typing import Optional @dataclass class AnnotationTask: """Structure for human annotation task.""" response: str question: str context: Optional[str] = None def get_annotation_form(self) -> dict: return { "question": self.question, "context": self.context, "response": self.response, "ratings": { "accuracy": { "scale": "1-5", "description": "Is the response factually correct?" }, "relevance": { "scale": "1-5", "description": "Does it answer the question?" }, "coherence": { "scale": "1-5", "description": "Is it logically consistent?" } }, "issues": { "factual_error": False, "hallucination": False, "off_topic": False, "unsafe_content": False }, "feedback": "" } ``` ### Inter-Rater Agreement ```python from sklearn.metrics import cohen_kappa_score def calculate_agreement( rater1_scores: list[int], rater2_scores: list[int] ) -> dict: """Calculate inter-rater agreement.""" kappa = cohen_kappa_score(rater1_scores, rater2_scores) if kappa < 0: interpretation = "Poor" elif kappa < 0.2: interpretation = "Slight" elif kappa < 0.4: interpretation = "Fair" elif kappa < 0.6: interpretation = "Moderate" elif kappa < 0.8: interpretation = "Substantial" else: interpretation = "Almost Perfect" return { "kappa": kappa, "interpretation": interpretation } ``` ## A/B Testing ### Statistical Testing Framework ```python from scipy import stats import numpy as np from dataclasses import dataclass, field @dataclass class ABTest: variant_a_name: str = "A" variant_b_name: str = "B" variant_a_scores: list[float] = field(default_factory=list) variant_b_scores: list[float] = field(default_factory=list) def add_result(self, variant: str, score: float): """Add evaluation result for a variant.""" if variant == "A": self.variant_a_scores.append(score) else: self.variant_b_scores.append(score) def analyze(self, alpha: float = 0.05) -> dict: """Perform statistical analysis.""" a_scores = np.array(self.variant_a_scores) b_scores = np.array(self.variant_b_scores) # T-test t_stat, p_value = stats.ttest_ind(a_scores, b_scores) # Effect size (Cohen's d) pooled_std = np.sqrt((np.std(a_scores)**2 + np.std(b_scores)**2) / 2) cohens_d = (np.mean(b_scores) - np.mean(a_scores)) / pooled_std return { "variant_a_mean": np.mean(a_scores), "variant_b_mean": np.mean(b_scores), "difference": np.mean(b_scores) - np.mean(a_scores), "relative_improvement": (np.mean(b_scores) - np.mean(a_scores)) / np.mean(a_scores), "p_value": p_value, "statistically_significant": p_value < alpha, "cohens_d": cohens_d, "effect_size": self._interpret_cohens_d(cohens_d), "winner": self.variant_b_name if np.mean(b_scores) > np.mean(a_scores) else self.variant_a_name } @staticmethod def _interpret_cohens_d(d: float) -> str: """Interpret Cohen's d effect size.""" abs_d = abs(d) if abs_d < 0.2: return "negligible" elif abs_d < 0.5: return "small" elif abs_d < 0.8: return "medium" else: return "large" ``` ## Regression Testing ### Regression Detection ```python from dataclasses import dataclass @dataclass class RegressionResult: metric: str baseline: float current: float change: float is_regression: bool class RegressionDetector: def __init__(self, baseline_results: dict, threshold: float = 0.05): self.baseline = baseline_results self.threshold = threshold def check_for_regression(self, new_results: dict) -> dict: """Detect if new results show regression.""" regressions = [] for metric in self.baseline.keys(): baseline_score = self.baseline[metric] new_score = new_results.get(metric) if new_score is None: continue # Calculate relative change relative_change = (new_score - baseline_score) / baseline_score # Flag if significant decrease is_regression = relative_change < -self.threshold if is_regression: regressions.append(RegressionResult( metric=metric, baseline=baseline_score, current=new_score, change=relative_change, is_regression=True )) return { "has_regression": len(regressions) > 0, "regressions": regressions, "summary": f"{len(regressions)} metric(s) regressed" } ``` ## LangSmith Evaluation Integration ```python from langsmith import Client from langsmith.evaluation import evaluate, LangChainStringEvaluator # Initialize LangSmith client client = Client() # Create dataset dataset = client.create_dataset("qa_test_cases") client.create_examples( inputs=[{"question": q} for q in questions], outputs=[{"answer": a} for a in expected_answers], dataset_id=dataset.id ) # Define evaluators evaluators = [ LangChainStringEvaluator("qa"), # QA correctness LangChainStringEvaluator("context_qa"), # Context-grounded QA LangChainStringEvaluator("cot_qa"), # Chain-of-thought QA ] # Run evaluation async def target_function(inputs: dict) -> dict: result = await your_chain.ainvoke(inputs) return {"answer": result} experiment_results = await evaluate( target_function, data=dataset.name, evaluators=evaluators, experiment_prefix="v1.0.0", metadata={"model": "claude-sonnet-5", "version": "1.0.0"} ) print(f"Mean score: {experiment_results.aggregate_metrics['qa']['mean']}") ``` ## Benchmarking ### Running Benchmarks ```python from dataclasses import dataclass import numpy as np @dataclass class BenchmarkResult: metric: str mean: float std: float min: float max: float class BenchmarkRunner: def __init__(self, benchmark_dataset: list[dict]): self.dataset = benchmark_dataset async def run_benchmark( self, model, metrics: list[Metric] ) -> dict[str, BenchmarkResult]: """Run model on benchmark and calculate metrics.""" results = {metric.name: [] for metric in metrics} for example in self.dataset: # Generate prediction prediction = await model.predict(example["input"]) # Calculate each metric for metric in metrics: score = metric.fn( prediction=prediction, reference=example["reference"], context=example.get("context") ) results[metric.name].append(score) # Aggregate results return { metric: BenchmarkResult( metric=metric, mean=np.mean(scores), std=np.std(scores), min=min(scores), max=max(scores) ) for metric, scores in results.items() } ```
-
-
SKILL.md 3.8 KB
--- name: llm-evaluation description: Implement comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications using automated metrics, human feedback, and benchmarking. Use when testing LLM performance, measuring AI application quality, or establishing evaluation frameworks. --- # LLM Evaluation Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing. ## When to Use This Skill - Measuring LLM application performance systematically - Comparing different models or prompts - Detecting performance regressions before deployment - Validating improvements from prompt changes - Building confidence in production systems - Establishing baselines and tracking progress over time - Debugging unexpected model behavior ## Core Evaluation Types ### 1. Automated Metrics Fast, repeatable, scalable evaluation using computed scores. **Text Generation:** - **BLEU**: N-gram overlap (translation) - **ROUGE**: Recall-oriented (summarization) - **METEOR**: Semantic similarity - **BERTScore**: Embedding-based similarity - **Perplexity**: Language model confidence **Classification:** - **Accuracy**: Percentage correct - **Precision/Recall/F1**: Class-specific performance - **Confusion Matrix**: Error patterns - **AUC-ROC**: Ranking quality **Retrieval (RAG):** - **MRR**: Mean Reciprocal Rank - **NDCG**: Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain - **Precision@K**: Relevant in top K - **Recall@K**: Coverage in top K ### 2. Human Evaluation Manual assessment for quality aspects difficult to automate. **Dimensions:** - **Accuracy**: Factual correctness - **Coherence**: Logical flow - **Relevance**: Answers the question - **Fluency**: Natural language quality - **Safety**: No harmful content - **Helpfulness**: Useful to the user ### 3. LLM-as-Judge Use stronger LLMs to evaluate weaker model outputs. **Approaches:** - **Pointwise**: Score individual responses - **Pairwise**: Compare two responses - **Reference-based**: Compare to gold standard - **Reference-free**: Judge without ground truth ## Quick Start ```python from dataclasses import dataclass from typing import Callable import numpy as np @dataclass class Metric: name: str fn: Callable @staticmethod def accuracy(): return Metric("accuracy", calculate_accuracy) @staticmethod def bleu(): return Metric("bleu", calculate_bleu) @staticmethod def bertscore(): return Metric("bertscore", calculate_bertscore) @staticmethod def custom(name: str, fn: Callable): return Metric(name, fn) class EvaluationSuite: def __init__(self, metrics: list[Metric]): self.metrics = metrics async def evaluate(self, model, test_cases: list[dict]) -> dict: results = {m.name: [] for m in self.metrics} for test in test_cases: prediction = await model.predict(test["input"]) for metric in self.metrics: score = metric.fn( prediction=prediction, reference=test.get("expected"), context=test.get("context") ) results[metric.name].append(score) return { "metrics": {k: np.mean(v) for k, v in results.items()}, "raw_scores": results } # Usage suite = EvaluationSuite([ Metric.accuracy(), Metric.bleu(), Metric.bertscore(), Metric.custom("groundedness", check_groundedness) ]) test_cases = [ { "input": "What is the capital of France?", "expected": "Paris", "context": "France is a country in Europe. Paris is its capital." }, ] results = await suite.evaluate(model=your_model, test_cases=test_cases) ``` ## Detailed patterns and worked examples Detailed pattern documentation lives in `references/details.md`. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.