CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-eval

Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics. Use when choosing between coding agents, or when a change to an agent setup needs measured pass rate, cost, and time rather than an impression.

68

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is tdg-personal/agent-eval

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, mostly actionable overview with concrete YAML and CLI examples and a clear workflow. Main gaps are the placeholder Installation step, minor padding, and absence of explicit validation/error-recovery checkpoints in the batch run workflow.

Suggestions

Replace the Installation note with a concrete install command (e.g., the pip/npm/git clone invocation) so the setup step is executable like the rest.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint after runs (e.g., 'Review the report for anomalous costs or 0/3 pass rates before drawing conclusions') to give the batch workflow a clear validation gate.

Trim flavor text like 'runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it' and the justifying worktree sentence to tighten token efficiency.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely efficient with tight code blocks and a compact metrics table, but carries minor padding ('runs on vibes', the explanatory worktree isolation sentence) that could be trimmed without losing clarity.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready YAML task definitions, run/report commands, and three judge-type examples, but the Installation section is only a note with no command and the Define-Tasks step uses a comment placeholder.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 3-step sequence (Define → Run → Compare) with concrete commands and per-run sub-steps; verification is built in via the judge pass/fail, though there is no explicit error-recovery or results-anomaly checkpoint.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections (concepts, workflow, judge types, best practices) with easy navigation and a single external repo link, but all content is inline in one file with no one-level-deep reference files for detail.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: third-person, concrete, with an explicit 'Use when...' clause and named agent triggers. Only minor gap is missing a few natural synonyms a user might say when comparison-shopping for agents.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the concrete action ('Head-to-head comparison of coding agents') and enumerates multiple specific metrics ('pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics'), giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill measures.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Head-to-head comparison... with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics') and when ('Use when choosing between coding agents, or when a change to an agent setup needs measured...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger phrases ('choosing between coding agents', 'a change to an agent setup needs measured pass rate, cost, and time') plus named agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex), but misses common synonyms like 'which agent is best' or 'compare agents'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (measured head-to-head coding-agent benchmarking) with distinct triggers ('measured pass rate, cost, and time rather than an impression'), minimizing overlap with general eval or coding skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
affaan-m/ECC
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.