mirror of
https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code.git
synced 2026-06-16 16:36:53 +08:00
c0f651cf85
- evaluate.py: add CRITICAL ISSUES (axes ≤ 2) section, VERDICT line - agent-evaluator.md: match format_report output exactly (title, evidence markers, bar graphs) - templates/evaluation-report.md: match evaluate.py output format - All now produce identical AGENT SELF-EVALUATION REPORT structure Single authoritative format: evaluate.py's format_report() output.
84 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
84 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
# Agent Self-Evaluation Report Template
|
||
|
||
Copy this template and fill in after completing a task. The format matches `scripts/evaluate.py` output.
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
============================================================
|
||
AGENT SELF-EVALUATION REPORT
|
||
============================================================
|
||
|
||
Accuracy █████ 5/5 or ███░░ 3/5
|
||
+ [Evidence: passing tests, verified claims]
|
||
- [Gaps: unverified claims, hedging language]
|
||
→ [Improvement if score < 5]
|
||
|
||
Completeness █████ 5/5
|
||
+ [What's covered: all requirements + edge cases]
|
||
- [What's missing: explicitly acknowledge gaps]
|
||
→ [Improvement if score < 5]
|
||
|
||
Clarity █████ 5/5
|
||
+ [Structure: headings, code blocks, bullet points]
|
||
- [Issues: undefined terms, wall of text, no summary]
|
||
→ [Improvement if score < 5]
|
||
|
||
Actionability █████ 5/5
|
||
+ [User can: merge PR, run command, review file]
|
||
- [Blockers: missing steps, vague suggestions]
|
||
→ [Improvement if score < 5]
|
||
|
||
Conciseness █████ 5/5
|
||
+ [Tight: no repetition, high information density]
|
||
- [Bloat: filler, meta-commentary, repeated points]
|
||
→ [Improvement if score < 5]
|
||
|
||
OVERALL X.X/5
|
||
|
||
CRITICAL ISSUES (axes ≤ 2):
|
||
[Axis] Score N/5 — specific fix needed
|
||
(or "None" if no axis ≤ 2)
|
||
|
||
TOP IMPROVEMENTS:
|
||
1. [Highest impact fix]
|
||
2. [Second highest]
|
||
(Only list axes scoring < 4, ranked by user impact)
|
||
|
||
VERDICT: [Deliver as-is / Fix N issues then deliver / Redo from scratch]
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## Quick Reference: Scoring Triggers
|
||
|
||
| If you see this... | Accuracy | Completeness | Clarity | Actionability | Conciseness |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| "should work" / "probably fine" | ≤4 | — | — | — | — |
|
||
| "I think" / "I believe" | ≤4 | — | — | — | — |
|
||
| No test output cited | ≤4 | — | — | — | — |
|
||
| "TODO" / "FIXME" left behind | ≤3 | ≤3 | — | ≤3 | — |
|
||
| Missing error handling | — | ≤3 | — | — | — |
|
||
| Only happy path covered | — | ≤3 | — | — | — |
|
||
| Wall-of-text paragraph (>200 words) | — | — | ≤3 | — | — |
|
||
| No headings or structure | — | — | ≤3 | — | — |
|
||
| "You should..." without specifics | — | — | — | ≤3 | — |
|
||
| No PR or file created | — | — | — | ≤3 | — |
|
||
| User needs to figure out next step | — | — | — | ≤2 | — |
|
||
| Repeated points (3+ times) | — | — | — | — | ≤3 |
|
||
| "Let me explain..." / "To summarize..." x3+ | — | — | — | — | ≤3 |
|
||
| Output >15x longer than task | — | — | — | — | ≤3 |
|
||
|
||
## When to Skip
|
||
|
||
Skip the evaluation if:
|
||
- Task was a single tool call (e.g., "read this file" — nothing to evaluate)
|
||
- User explicitly says "don't evaluate" or "just do it"
|
||
- Task is purely conversational (greeting, small talk)
|
||
- You're mid-workflow and the user will judge the final output, not intermediate steps
|
||
|
||
## Post-Evaluation Actions
|
||
|
||
| Overall Score | What to do |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| ≥4.5 | Deliver as-is. No changes needed. |
|
||
| 3.5–4.4 | Flag top improvement but deliver. Fix if <30 seconds. |
|
||
| 2.5–3.4 | State what you'd change. Ask user: "Should I redo [axis] or deliver as-is?" |
|
||
| <2.5 | Don't deliver. Say: "This scored __ because __. Let me redo this with [specific fix]." Then redo. |
|