Loading...
Loading...
Found 44 Skills
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.
Produce an LLM Build Pack (prompt+tool contract, data/eval plan, architecture+safety, launch checklist). Use for building with LLMs, GPT/Claude apps, prompt engineering, RAG, and tool-using agents.
Opik observability for LLM agents — Agent Configuration, Local Runner (opik connect), Evaluation Suites, threads, integrations. Use for "configure my agent", "connect my agent", "evaluate my agent" or "integrate with Opik".
Instrument, trace, evaluate, and monitor LLM applications and AI agents with LangSmith. Use when setting up observability for LLM pipelines, running offline or online evaluations, managing prompts in the Prompt Hub, creating datasets for regression testing, or deploying agent servers. Triggers on: langsmith, langchain tracing, llm tracing, llm observability, llm evaluation, trace llm calls, @traceable, wrap_openai, langsmith evaluate, langsmith dataset, langsmith feedback, langsmith prompt hub, langsmith project, llm monitoring, llm debugging, llm quality, openevals, langsmith cli, langsmith experiment, annotate llm, llm judge.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "implement LLM-as-judge", "compare model outputs", "create evaluation rubrics", "mitigate evaluation bias", or mentions direct scoring, pairwise comparison, position bias, evaluation pipelines, or automated quality assessment. Part of the context engineering skill suite — also activates when the user mentions "context engineering" or "context-engineering" in the context of evaluating LLM output quality.
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, prompt management, and cost tracking. Use when setting up Langfuse, monitoring LLM costs, tracking token usage, or implementing prompt versioning.
Use when evaluating LLMs, running benchmarks like MMLU/HumanEval/GSM8K, setting up evaluation pipelines, or asking about "NeMo Evaluator", "LLM benchmarking", "model evaluation", "MMLU", "HumanEval", "GSM8K", "benchmark harnesses"
Build a structured taxonomy of failure modes from open-coded trace annotations. Use this skill whenever the user has freeform annotations from reviewing LLM traces and wants to cluster them into a coherent, non-overlapping set of binary failure categories (axial coding). Also use when the user mentions "failure modes", "error taxonomy", "axial coding", "cluster annotations", "categorize errors", "failure analysis", or wants to go from raw observation notes to structured evaluation criteria. This skill covers the full pipeline: grouping open codes, defining failure modes, re-labeling traces, and quantifying error rates.
Evaluate LLM systems using automated metrics, LLM-as-judge, and benchmarks. Use when testing prompt quality, validating RAG pipelines, measuring safety (hallucinations, bias), or comparing models for production deployment.
Open-source AI observability platform for LLM tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications with detailed traces, running evaluations on datasets, or monitoring production AI systems with real-time insights.
Design LLM-as-Judge evaluators for subjective criteria that code-based checks cannot handle. Use when a failure mode requires interpretation (tone, faithfulness, relevance, completeness). Do NOT use when the failure mode can be checked with code (regex, schema validation, execution tests). Do NOT use when you need to validate or calibrate the judge — use validate-evaluator instead.
Calibrate an LLM judge against human labels using data splits, TPR/TNR, and bias correction. Use after writing a judge prompt (write-judge-prompt) when you need to verify alignment before trusting its outputs. Do NOT use for code-based evaluators (those are deterministic; test with standard unit tests).