@sylix/coworker 2.0.11 → 2.0.12

package/dist/skills/defaults/llm-application/llm-evaluation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,695 @@
+---
+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)
+```
+
+## 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-4-6",
+        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-4-6",
+        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-4-6",
+        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-4-6", "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()
+        }
+```
+
+## Resources
+
+- [LangSmith Evaluation Guide](https://docs.smith.langchain.com/evaluation)
+- [RAGAS Framework](https://docs.ragas.io/)
+- [DeepEval Library](https://docs.deepeval.com/)
+- [Arize Phoenix](https://docs.arize.com/phoenix/)
+- [HELM Benchmark](https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/)
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Multiple Metrics**: Use diverse metrics for comprehensive view
+2. **Representative Data**: Test on real-world, diverse examples
+3. **Baselines**: Always compare against baseline performance
+4. **Statistical Rigor**: Use proper statistical tests for comparisons
+5. **Continuous Evaluation**: Integrate into CI/CD pipeline
+6. **Human Validation**: Combine automated metrics with human judgment
+7. **Error Analysis**: Investigate failures to understand weaknesses
+8. **Version Control**: Track evaluation results over time
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+- **Single Metric Obsession**: Optimizing for one metric at the expense of others
+- **Small Sample Size**: Drawing conclusions from too few examples
+- **Data Contamination**: Testing on training data
+- **Ignoring Variance**: Not accounting for statistical uncertainty
+- **Metric Mismatch**: Using metrics not aligned with business goals
+- **Position Bias**: In pairwise evals, randomize order
+- **Overfitting Prompts**: Optimizing for test set instead of real use