Evaluate and rank agent results by metric or LLM judge for an AgentHub session. Use when the user runs /hub:eval or asks to score, compare, or pick a winner among completed AgentHub agents.
64
76%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
—
The risk profile of this skill
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./engineering/agenthub/skills/eval/SKILL.mdRank all agent results for a session. Supports metric-based evaluation (run a command), LLM judge (compare diffs), or hybrid.
/hub:eval # Eval latest session using configured criteria
/hub:eval 20260317-143022 # Eval specific session
/hub:eval --judge # Force LLM judge mode (ignore metric config)Run the evaluation command in each agent's worktree:
python {skill_path}/scripts/result_ranker.py \
--session {session-id} \
--eval-cmd "{eval_cmd}" \
--metric {metric} --direction {direction}Output:
RANK AGENT METRIC DELTA FILES
1 agent-2 142ms -38ms 2
2 agent-1 165ms -15ms 3
3 agent-3 190ms +10ms 1
Winner: agent-2 (142ms)For each agent:
git diff {base_branch}...{agent_branch}.agenthub/board/results/agent-{i}-result.mdPresent rankings with justification.
Example LLM judge output for a content task:
RANK AGENT VERDICT WORD COUNT
1 agent-1 Strong narrative, clear CTA 1480
2 agent-3 Good data points, weak intro 1520
3 agent-2 Generic tone, no differentiation 1350
Winner: agent-1 (strongest narrative arc and call-to-action)python {skill_path}/scripts/session_manager.py --update {session-id} --state evaluating/hub:merge to merge the winner/hub:merge {session-id} --agent {winner} to be explicit19392f7
Also appears in
since Aug 28, 2026
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.