smithery/neversight

advanced-evaluation

Master LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation techniques including direct scoring, pairwise comparison, rubric generation, and bias mitigation. Use when building evaluation systems, comparing model outputs, or establishing quality standards for AI-generated content.

Installation

$ npx skills add smithery/neversight --skill advanced-evaluation

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery/neversight · top by installs.

npx skills add smithery/neversight

Browse all from smithery/neversight

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Version1.0.0

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 3,088 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 280 B

History

  1. First recorded snapshot · 0 installs

SKILL.md

Advanced Evaluation

LLM-as-a-Judge techniques for evaluating AI outputs. Not a single technique but a family of approaches - choosing the right one and mitigating biases is the core competency.

When to Activate

  • Building automated evaluation pipelines for LLM outputs
  • Comparing multiple model responses to select the best one
  • Establishing consistent quality standards
  • Debugging inconsistent evaluation results
  • Designing A/B tests for prompt or model changes
  • Creating rubrics for human or automated evaluation

Core Concepts

Evaluation Taxonomy

Direct Scoring: 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

Pairwise Comparison: LLM compares two responses and selects better one.

  • Best for: Subjective preferences (tone, style, persuasiveness)
  • Reliability: Higher than direct scoring for preferences

Known Biases

Bias Description Mitigation
Position First-position preference Swap positions, check consistency
Length Longer = higher scores Explicit prompting, length-normalized scoring
Self-Enhancement Models rate own outputs higher Use different model for evaluation
Verbosity Unnecessary detail rated higher Criteria-specific rubrics
Authority Confident tone rated higher Require evidence citation

Decision Framework

Is there an objective ground truth?
├── Yes → Direct Scoring (factual accuracy, format compliance)
└── No → Pairwise Comparison (tone, style, creativity)

Quick Reference

Direct Scoring Requirements

  1. Clear criteria definitions
  2. Calibrated scale (1-5 recommended)
  3. Chain-of-thought: justification BEFORE score (improves reliability 15-25%)

Pairwise Comparison Protocol

  1. First pass: A in first position
  2. Second pass: B in first position (swap)
  3. Consistency check: If passes disagree → TIE
  4. Final verdict: Consistent winner with averaged confidence

Rubric Components

  • Level descriptions with clear boundaries
  • Observable characteristics per level
  • Edge case guidance
  • Strictness calibration (lenient/balanced/strict)

Integration

Works with:

  • context-fundamentals - Effective context structure
  • tool-design - Evaluation tool schemas
  • evaluation (foundational) - Core evaluation concepts

For detailed implementation patterns, prompt templates, examples, and metrics: references/full-guide.md

See also: references/implementation-patterns.md, references/bias-mitigation.md, references/metrics-guide.md