opencode-multiagent 0.2.0

package/skills/advanced-evaluation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,454 @@
+---
+name: advanced-evaluation
+description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "implement LLM-as-judge", "compare model outputs", "create evaluation rubrics", "mitigate evaluation bias", or mentions direct scoring, pairwise comparison, position bias, evaluation pipelines, or automated quality assessment.
+---
+
+# Advanced Evaluation
+
+This skill covers production-grade techniques for evaluating LLM outputs using LLMs as judges. It synthesizes research from academic papers, industry practices, and practical implementation experience into actionable patterns for building reliable evaluation systems.
+
+**Key insight**: LLM-as-a-Judge is not a single technique but a family of approaches, each suited to different evaluation contexts. Choosing the right approach and mitigating known biases is the core competency this skill develops.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+Activate this skill when:
+
+- Building automated evaluation pipelines for LLM outputs
+- Comparing multiple model responses to select the best one
+- Establishing consistent quality standards across evaluation teams
+- Debugging evaluation systems that show inconsistent results
+- Designing A/B tests for prompt or model changes
+- Creating rubrics for human or automated evaluation
+- Analyzing correlation between automated and human judgments
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+### The Evaluation Taxonomy
+
+Evaluation approaches fall into two primary categories with distinct reliability profiles:
+
+**Direct Scoring**: A single LLM rates one response on a defined scale.
+- Best for: Objective criteria (factual accuracy, instruction following, toxicity)
+- Reliability: Moderate to high for well-defined criteria
+- Failure mode: Score calibration drift, inconsistent scale interpretation
+
+**Pairwise Comparison**: An LLM compares two responses and selects the better one.
+- Best for: Subjective preferences (tone, style, persuasiveness)
+- Reliability: Higher than direct scoring for preferences
+- Failure mode: Position bias, length bias
+
+Research from the MT-Bench paper (Zheng et al., 2023) establishes that pairwise comparison achieves higher agreement with human judges than direct scoring for preference-based evaluation, while direct scoring remains appropriate for objective criteria with clear ground truth.
+
+### The Bias Landscape
+
+LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that must be actively mitigated:
+
+**Position Bias**: First-position responses receive preferential treatment in pairwise comparison. Mitigation: Evaluate twice with swapped positions, use majority vote or consistency check.
+
+**Length Bias**: Longer responses are rated higher regardless of quality. Mitigation: Explicit prompting to ignore length, length-normalized scoring.
+
+**Self-Enhancement Bias**: Models rate their own outputs higher. Mitigation: Use different models for generation and evaluation, or acknowledge limitation.
+
+**Verbosity Bias**: Detailed explanations receive higher scores even when unnecessary. Mitigation: Criteria-specific rubrics that penalize irrelevant detail.
+
+**Authority Bias**: Confident, authoritative tone rated higher regardless of accuracy. Mitigation: Require evidence citation, fact-checking layer.
+
+### Metric Selection Framework
+
+Choose metrics based on the evaluation task structure:
+
+| Task Type | Primary Metrics | Secondary Metrics |
+|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|
+| Binary classification (pass/fail) | Recall, Precision, F1 | Cohen's κ |
+| Ordinal scale (1-5 rating) | Spearman's ρ, Kendall's τ | Cohen's κ (weighted) |
+| Pairwise preference | Agreement rate, Position consistency | Confidence calibration |
+| Multi-label | Macro-F1, Micro-F1 | Per-label precision/recall |
+
+The critical insight: High absolute agreement matters less than systematic disagreement patterns. A judge that consistently disagrees with humans on specific criteria is more problematic than one with random noise.
+
+## Evaluation Approaches
+
+### Direct Scoring Implementation
+
+Direct scoring requires three components: clear criteria, a calibrated scale, and structured output format.
+
+**Criteria Definition Pattern**:
+```
+Criterion: [Name]
+Description: [What this criterion measures]
+Weight: [Relative importance, 0-1]
+```
+
+**Scale Calibration**:
+- 1-3 scales: Binary with neutral option, lowest cognitive load
+- 1-5 scales: Standard Likert, good balance of granularity and reliability
+- 1-10 scales: High granularity but harder to calibrate, use only with detailed rubrics
+
+**Prompt Structure for Direct Scoring**:
+```
+You are an expert evaluator assessing response quality.
+
+## Task
+Evaluate the following response against each criterion.
+
+## Original Prompt
+{prompt}
+
+## Response to Evaluate
+{response}
+
+## Criteria
+{for each criterion: name, description, weight}
+
+## Instructions
+For each criterion:
+1. Find specific evidence in the response
+2. Score according to the rubric (1-{max} scale)
+3. Justify your score with evidence
+4. Suggest one specific improvement
+
+## Output Format
+Respond with structured JSON containing scores, justifications, and summary.
+```
+
+**Chain-of-Thought Requirement**: All scoring prompts must require justification before the score. Research shows this improves reliability by 15-25% compared to score-first approaches.
+
+### Pairwise Comparison Implementation
+
+Pairwise comparison is inherently more reliable for preference-based evaluation but requires bias mitigation.
+
+**Position Bias Mitigation Protocol**:
+1. First pass: Response A in first position, Response B in second
+2. Second pass: Response B in first position, Response A in second
+3. Consistency check: If passes disagree, return TIE with reduced confidence
+4. Final verdict: Consistent winner with averaged confidence
+
+**Prompt Structure for Pairwise Comparison**:
+```
+You are an expert evaluator comparing two AI responses.
+
+## Critical Instructions
+- Do NOT prefer responses because they are longer
+- Do NOT prefer responses based on position (first vs second)
+- Focus ONLY on quality according to the specified criteria
+- Ties are acceptable when responses are genuinely equivalent
+
+## Original Prompt
+{prompt}
+
+## Response A
+{response_a}
+
+## Response B
+{response_b}
+
+## Comparison Criteria
+{criteria list}
+
+## Instructions
+1. Analyze each response independently first
+2. Compare them on each criterion
+3. Determine overall winner with confidence level
+
+## Output Format
+JSON with per-criterion comparison, overall winner, confidence (0-1), and reasoning.
+```
+
+**Confidence Calibration**: Confidence scores should reflect position consistency:
+- Both passes agree: confidence = average of individual confidences
+- Passes disagree: confidence = 0.5, verdict = TIE
+
+### Rubric Generation
+
+Well-defined rubrics reduce evaluation variance by 40-60% compared to open-ended scoring.
+
+**Rubric Components**:
+1. **Level descriptions**: Clear boundaries for each score level
+2. **Characteristics**: Observable features that define each level
+3. **Examples**: Representative text for each level (optional but valuable)
+4. **Edge cases**: Guidance for ambiguous situations
+5. **Scoring guidelines**: General principles for consistent application
+
+**Strictness Calibration**:
+- **Lenient**: Lower bar for passing scores, appropriate for encouraging iteration
+- **Balanced**: Fair, typical expectations for production use
+- **Strict**: High standards, appropriate for safety-critical or high-stakes evaluation
+
+**Domain Adaptation**: Rubrics should use domain-specific terminology. A "code readability" rubric mentions variables, functions, and comments. A "medical accuracy" rubric references clinical terminology and evidence standards.
+
+## Practical Guidance
+
+### Evaluation Pipeline Design
+
+Production evaluation systems require multiple layers:
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                 Evaluation Pipeline              │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                                   │
+│  Input: Response + Prompt + Context               │
+│           │                                       │
+│           ▼                                       │
+│  ┌─────────────────────┐                         │
+│  │   Criteria Loader   │ ◄── Rubrics, weights    │
+│  └──────────┬──────────┘                         │
+│             │                                     │
+│             ▼                                     │
+│  ┌─────────────────────┐                         │
+│  │   Primary Scorer    │ ◄── Direct or Pairwise  │
+│  └──────────┬──────────┘                         │
+│             │                                     │
+│             ▼                                     │
+│  ┌─────────────────────┐                         │
+│  │   Bias Mitigation   │ ◄── Position swap, etc. │
+│  └──────────┬──────────┘                         │
+│             │                                     │
+│             ▼                                     │
+│  ┌─────────────────────┐                         │
+│  │ Confidence Scoring  │ ◄── Calibration         │
+│  └──────────┬──────────┘                         │
+│             │                                     │
+│             ▼                                     │
+│  Output: Scores + Justifications + Confidence     │
+│                                                   │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### Common Anti-Patterns
+
+**Anti-pattern: Scoring without justification**
+- Problem: Scores lack grounding, difficult to debug or improve
+- Solution: Always require evidence-based justification before score
+
+**Anti-pattern: Single-pass pairwise comparison**
+- Problem: Position bias corrupts results
+- Solution: Always swap positions and check consistency
+
+**Anti-pattern: Overloaded criteria**
+- Problem: Criteria measuring multiple things are unreliable
+- Solution: One criterion = one measurable aspect
+
+**Anti-pattern: Missing edge case guidance**
+- Problem: Evaluators handle ambiguous cases inconsistently
+- Solution: Include edge cases in rubrics with explicit guidance
+
+**Anti-pattern: Ignoring confidence calibration**
+- Problem: High-confidence wrong judgments are worse than low-confidence
+- Solution: Calibrate confidence to position consistency and evidence strength
+
+### Decision Framework: Direct vs. Pairwise
+
+Use this decision tree:
+
+```
+Is there an objective ground truth?
+├── Yes → Direct Scoring
+│   └── Examples: factual accuracy, instruction following, format compliance
+│
+└── No → Is it a preference or quality judgment?
+    ├── Yes → Pairwise Comparison
+    │   └── Examples: tone, style, persuasiveness, creativity
+    │
+    └── No → Consider reference-based evaluation
+        └── Examples: summarization (compare to source), translation (compare to reference)
+```
+
+### Scaling Evaluation
+
+For high-volume evaluation:
+
+1. **Panel of LLMs (PoLL)**: Use multiple models as judges, aggregate votes
+   - Reduces individual model bias
+   - More expensive but more reliable for high-stakes decisions
+
+2. **Hierarchical evaluation**: Fast cheap model for screening, expensive model for edge cases
+   - Cost-effective for large volumes
+   - Requires calibration of screening threshold
+
+3. **Human-in-the-loop**: Automated evaluation for clear cases, human review for low-confidence
+   - Best reliability for critical applications
+   - Design feedback loop to improve automated evaluation
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1: Direct Scoring for Accuracy
+
+**Input**:
+```
+Prompt: "What causes seasons on Earth?"
+Response: "Seasons are caused by Earth's tilted axis. As Earth orbits the Sun, 
+different hemispheres receive more direct sunlight at different times of year."
+Criterion: Factual Accuracy (weight: 1.0)
+Scale: 1-5
+```
+
+**Output**:
+```json
+{
+  "criterion": "Factual Accuracy",
+  "score": 5,
+  "evidence": [
+    "Correctly identifies axial tilt as primary cause",
+    "Correctly explains differential sunlight by hemisphere",
+    "No factual errors present"
+  ],
+  "justification": "Response accurately explains the cause of seasons with correct 
+scientific reasoning. Both the axial tilt and its effect on sunlight distribution 
+are correctly described.",
+  "improvement": "Could add the specific tilt angle (23.5°) for completeness."
+}
+```
+
+### Example 2: Pairwise Comparison with Position Swap
+
+**Input**:
+```
+Prompt: "Explain machine learning to a beginner"
+Response A: [Technical explanation with jargon]
+Response B: [Simple analogy-based explanation]
+Criteria: ["clarity", "accessibility"]
+```
+
+**First Pass (A first)**:
+```json
+{ "winner": "B", "confidence": 0.8 }
+```
+
+**Second Pass (B first)**:
+```json
+{ "winner": "A", "confidence": 0.6 }
+```
+(Note: Winner is A because B was in first position)
+
+**Mapped Second Pass**:
+```json
+{ "winner": "B", "confidence": 0.6 }
+```
+
+**Final Result**:
+```json
+{
+  "winner": "B",
+  "confidence": 0.7,
+  "positionConsistency": {
+    "consistent": true,
+    "firstPassWinner": "B",
+    "secondPassWinner": "B"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Example 3: Rubric Generation
+
+**Input**:
+```
+criterionName: "Code Readability"
+criterionDescription: "How easy the code is to understand and maintain"
+domain: "software engineering"
+scale: "1-5"
+strictness: "balanced"
+```
+
+**Output** (abbreviated):
+```json
+{
+  "levels": [
+    {
+      "score": 1,
+      "label": "Poor",
+      "description": "Code is difficult to understand without significant effort",
+      "characteristics": [
+        "No meaningful variable or function names",
+        "No comments or documentation",
+        "Deeply nested or convoluted logic"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "score": 3,
+      "label": "Adequate",
+      "description": "Code is understandable with some effort",
+      "characteristics": [
+        "Most variables have meaningful names",
+        "Basic comments present for complex sections",
+        "Logic is followable but could be cleaner"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "score": 5,
+      "label": "Excellent",
+      "description": "Code is immediately clear and maintainable",
+      "characteristics": [
+        "All names are descriptive and consistent",
+        "Comprehensive documentation",
+        "Clean, modular structure"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "edgeCases": [
+    {
+      "situation": "Code is well-structured but uses domain-specific abbreviations",
+      "guidance": "Score based on readability for domain experts, not general audience"
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+## Guidelines
+
+1. **Always require justification before scores** - Chain-of-thought prompting improves reliability by 15-25%
+
+2. **Always swap positions in pairwise comparison** - Single-pass comparison is corrupted by position bias
+
+3. **Match scale granularity to rubric specificity** - Don't use 1-10 without detailed level descriptions
+
+4. **Separate objective and subjective criteria** - Use direct scoring for objective, pairwise for subjective
+
+5. **Include confidence scores** - Calibrate to position consistency and evidence strength
+
+6. **Define edge cases explicitly** - Ambiguous situations cause the most evaluation variance
+
+7. **Use domain-specific rubrics** - Generic rubrics produce generic (less useful) evaluations
+
+8. **Validate against human judgments** - Automated evaluation is only valuable if it correlates with human assessment
+
+9. **Monitor for systematic bias** - Track disagreement patterns by criterion, response type, model
+
+10. **Design for iteration** - Evaluation systems improve with feedback loops
+
+## Integration
+
+This skill integrates with:
+
+- **context-fundamentals** - Evaluation prompts require effective context structure
+- **tool-design** - Evaluation tools need proper schemas and error handling
+- **context-optimization** - Evaluation prompts can be optimized for token efficiency
+- **evaluation** (foundational) - This skill extends the foundational evaluation concepts
+
+## References
+
+Internal reference:
+- [LLM-as-Judge Implementation Patterns](./references/implementation-patterns.md)
+- [Bias Mitigation Techniques](./references/bias-mitigation.md)
+- [Metric Selection Guide](./references/metrics-guide.md)
+
+External research:
+- [Eugene Yan: Evaluating the Effectiveness of LLM-Evaluators](https://eugeneyan.com/writing/llm-evaluators/)
+- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge (Zheng et al., 2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05685)
+- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 (Liu et al., 2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16634)
+- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators (Wang et al., 2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17926)
+
+Related skills in this collection:
+- evaluation - Foundational evaluation concepts
+- context-fundamentals - Context structure for evaluation prompts
+- tool-design - Building evaluation tools
+
+---
+
+## Skill Metadata
+
+**Created**: 2024-12-24
+**Last Updated**: 2024-12-24
+**Author**: Muratcan Koylan
+**Version**: 1.0.0
+

package/skills/advanced-evaluation/manifest.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "name": "advanced-evaluation",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "description": "Advanced evaluation workflows for comparative and bias-aware judgment tasks",
+  "triggers": [
+    "advanced evaluation",
+    "compare outputs",
+    "pairwise",
+    "position bias",
+    "judge"
+  ],
+  "applicable_agents": [
+    "critic",
+    "strategist",
+    "librarian",
+    "reviewer"
+  ],
+  "max_context_tokens": 2200,
+  "entry_file": "SKILL.md"
+}