CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

bedrock-agentcore-evaluations

Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Evaluations for testing and monitoring AI agent quality. 13 built-in evaluators plus custom LLM-as-Judge patterns. Use when testing agents, monitoring production quality, setting up alerts, or validating agent behavior.

Quality

71%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/bedrock-agentcore-evaluations/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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.

The body is a code-heavy, largely actionable reference for the five AgentCore Evaluations operations, but it is bloated with duplicated examples and metadata, lacks validation/error-handling steps in its batch loops, and — most seriously — points readers to reference files that are absent from the bundle.

Suggestions

Create the referenced files (references/evaluator-reference.md, references/test-scenarios.md, references/alerting-patterns.md) and move the bulk content into them: the three near-duplicate custom LLM-as-Judge variants belong in evaluator-reference.md, the CloudWatch alarm and dashboard code in alerting-patterns.md, and the test-scenario suites in test-scenarios.md — or remove the References section if the files are not shipped.

Add validation and error handling to the batch operations: check each create_evaluator response for errors inside the loop, verify response['scores'] structure before aggregating, and wrap the evaluation loops with retry/failed-case reporting so broken cases are surfaced instead of crashing the run.

Trim the filler: remove the 'Time:'/'Automation:' labels, the 'Key Principles (validated by AWS December 2025)' and 'Quality Targets' sections, and define or inline the missing variables (agent_arn, evaluator_ids, run_evaluation) so every snippet is self-contained.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, useful boto3 code, but carries noticeable padding: a 'Key Principles (validated by AWS December 2025)' list, a 'Quality Targets' table, per-operation 'Time:' and 'Automation:' labels, and three near-duplicate custom LLM-as-Judge examples that repeat the same create_evaluator scaffolding. It is not level 2 because the bulk is actionable code rather than explanatory prose, and not level 4 because the metadata sections and duplicated examples could clearly be trimmed or moved out.

3 / 5

Actionability

Most guidance is concrete, executable Python (create_evaluator, evaluate, put_metric_alarm, put_dashboard with realistic parameters). Not 5 because several snippets reference undefined variables (agent_arn, evaluator_ids, helpfulness_evaluator_id) and the 'Establish Baselines First' section calls a run_evaluation() helper that is never defined, leaving minor gaps to a copy-paste-ready run.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five operations are clearly labeled and roughly sequenced (create evaluators → custom judges → on-demand → continuous monitoring → dashboard), but the batch loops (creating 10+ evaluators, iterating test scenarios) have no error handling or validation checkpoints — per the rubric, missing validation in batch operations caps this at 3. Only the adversarial-testing snippet includes an assertion-style check.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The References section cites references/evaluator-reference.md, references/test-scenarios.md, and references/alerting-patterns.md, but none of these files exist in the bundle, so navigation dead-ends. Meanwhile ~400 lines of code that clearly belongs in those files (the three custom-judge variants, alarm patterns, dashboard JSON) are inlined in SKILL.md. Structure exists, but missing reference files plus monolithic inline content places this between anchors 2 and 3, at 2.

2 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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: concise, third-person, with an explicit what-plus-when structure and concrete trigger phrases. The main gap is that the 'what' clause is thin — it names the domain and evaluator counts but not the operations the skill actually walks through.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Evaluations for testing and monitoring AI agent quality') and 1-2 concrete capabilities ('13 built-in evaluators plus custom LLM-as-Judge patterns'), but does not list several specific actions. It is above anchor 2 because the actions are concrete rather than generic, but below anchor 4 because coverage of what the skill actually does (create evaluators, run on-demand tests, set up monitoring/dashboards) is not spelled out.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: 'what' via 'Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Evaluations for testing and monitoring AI agent quality. 13 built-in evaluators plus custom LLM-as-Judge patterns' and 'when' via four concrete trigger phrases in the 'Use when...' clause, mirroring the anchor-5 example pattern. Not below 4: the 'when' is explicit and specific, not weakly implied.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when' clause provides good natural keyword coverage: 'testing agents, monitoring production quality, setting up alerts, or validating agent behavior' — phrases a user would plausibly say. It falls short of anchor 5 because common variations like 'agent quality', 'evaluations', 'evaluating my agent', or 'LLM-as-judge' are not covered as trigger synonyms.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named platform ('Amazon Bedrock AgentCore') carves a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. Not 5 because generic triggers like 'testing agents' or 'validating agent behavior' could also fire for non-Bedrock agent-testing needs.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (678 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz

Path

skills/bedrock-agentcore-evaluations/SKILL.md

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.