Generated banner for Eval Harness First
Generated logo for Eval Harness First

Eval Harness First

Seth HobsonCommunityCreated by Seth Hobson

  • Skill
  • Workflow
  • Software development
  • MIT
  • No issues found

From the author

Build the evaluation harness that gates every fine-tuning run — golden sets, per-failure-mode graders, judge calibration, and base-model baselines. Use when starting a fine-tuning effort, when converting traces into an eval set, or when calibrating a judge against human labels.
— the description by Seth Hobson

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

This skill provides a structured workflow for building an evaluation harness that acts as the primary gate for fine-tuning efforts. It emphasizes data curation, error analysis, and the creation of a regression suite that serves as both the training data source and the final checkpoint validator. By establishing deterministic graders and calibrated LLM-judges, the harness ensures that every fine-tuning run is measured against a consistent, versioned baseline, preventing regressions and providing a clear metric for model improvement.

What it does

  • Guides the collection and axial coding of traces into failure buckets.
  • Defines a directory structure for versioned goldens, graders, and drift suites.
  • Provides templates for deterministic and LLM-based grading.
  • Outlines a calibration protocol for LLM-judges to ensure reliable verdicts.
  • Establishes a baseline against the unmodified base model for future comparisons.
  • Ensures evaluation data is strictly separated from training data.

When to use it

  • Before starting any fine-tuning effort.
  • When converting production traces into a structured evaluation set.
  • When calibrating an LLM-judge against human-labeled data.
  • When establishing a CI regression suite for model checkpoints.

Advantages

  • Prevents regressions by gating checkpoints against a fixed baseline.
  • Provides a clear, data-driven basis for model promotion.
  • Reduces noise in evaluation by using binary pass/fail grading.
  • Ensures evaluation metrics are reproducible and versioned like code.

Usage examples

“How do I start the Phase 0 evaluation setup for my fine-tuning project?”
The agent will guide you through collecting 100+ traces, performing axial coding to define 4-8 failure buckets, and creating the initial eval/ directory structure.
“I need to set up a grader for my JSON schema compliance failure bucket.”
The agent will provide the schema-compliance Python template and explain how to integrate it into the eval/graders/ directory.
“How do I calibrate my LLM-judge for the tone-consistency bucket?”
The agent will walk you through the labeling, splitting, and TPR/TNR calculation protocol defined in the calibration reference.
“What should I do before running my first fine-tuning training config?”
The agent will verify the Phase 0 Exit Checklist, ensuring goldens, graders, judge calibration, and the baseline file are all present and valid.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/wshobson/eval-harness-first/download
  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip eval-harness-first.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by Seth Hobson

Eval Harness First

The Phase 0 gate for the whole plugin: finetuning-method-selection and every downstream skill assume this harness exists before a training config gets written. The harness is not a run-end side artifact — it is the data-curation engine. The same labeled traces that build the goldens feed training data, minus an explicit holdout.

Input: production/agent traces if they exist, or a task spec if they don't, plus labelers willing to grade ≥100 examples. Output format: the eval/ directory below — goldens, graders, drift suite, and the base-model baseline that later phases gate on.

The Gate

No eval harness, no fine-tune. Skip to a training config and there is nothing to measure against, nothing to catch regressions, and no labeled data to train on. The flywheel:

  1. Collect traces — production/agent spans, or synthetic tasks if none exist yet.

  2. Error analysis — open coding on ≥100 traces, axial coding into 4–8 failure buckets.

  3. One grader per bucket — deterministic first; calibrated LLM-judge only for genuinely subjective criteria.

  4. Prioritize by frequency × severity × value.

  5. The labeled traces feed dataset curation, minus an explicit holdout. Every eval/goldens.jsonl ID stays excluded from training data by ID.

  6. Train.

  7. Re-run the same harness on the checkpoint — not a different, looser one.

  8. Drift detection feeds back to step 2 — new production failure modes re-open error analysis.

Steps 2–4 build the harness; steps 5–8 are why it must exist first — it is both the training data source and the checkpoint's exit gate.

Building Goldens

  • From traces, when they exist: run error analysis — open coding on ≥100 real traces (read them, tag failures in your own words, no fixed taxonomy yet), then axial coding to collapse those tags into 4–8 named failure buckets. Fewer than 4 means the coding pass was too shallow; more than 8 means buckets need merging. Exception: single-failure-surface tasks (e.g. strict-schema extraction) may land at 1–2 buckets with per-field sub-metrics inside one grader — don't invent artificial splits with no evidence behind them.

  • Synthetic, when traces don't exist yet: dimension-based generation — enumerate the axes that matter (task type, difficulty, edge case, persona) and sample the cross-product; free- generated prompts cluster around whatever's easiest to write.

  • Goldens are versioned like code — commit eval/goldens.jsonl, diff it in review, tag it per release. It doubles as the CI regression suite.

Graders

One grader per failure bucket from error analysis — not one for the whole eval set. A single blended score hides which bucket regressed.

  • Deterministic first. Regex, schema validation, or execution checks are cheaper, reproducible, and need no calibration.

  • LLM-judge only for genuinely subjective criteria — tone, faithfulness, "which response is better" — where no deterministic check can express it.

  • Binary pass/fail over Likert. A 1–5 or 1–10 scale is noisier to calibrate and harder to apply consistently; collapse to pass/fail.

  • Drift-suite MMLU-style scoring: prefer logprob over generate-and-extract — a tight token budget makes generate-and-extract parse-brittle for models that preamble, conflating format compliance with the knowledge being measured. Templates for all four grader shapes and this scoring note: references/grader-templates.md.

Judge Calibration Is a Prerequisite

Any bucket routed to an LLM-judge needs calibration before its verdicts count for anything beyond exploration — a hard prerequisite, not a nice-to-have. N/A when no bucket routes to a judge — an all-deterministic harness has nothing to calibrate; state that rather than leaving this section unaddressed.

  • Label ≥100 items, split train/dev/sealed test (report once, no re-touching after).

  • Report TPR and TNR, not one blended accuracy number — a judge can hit 90% by always saying "pass" on a skewed set.

  • Pin the judge to a fixed model snapshot and recalibrate on judge-model change, quarterly regardless.

  • The judge must come from a different model family than the model under test.

  • A judge that misses the agreed TPR/TNR bar ships advisory-only — flags for human review, never gates a promotion. Full protocol, bias correction, and recalibration checklist: references/judge-calibration.md.

The Baseline

Before Phase 1 (method selection) starts, run the full harness — goldens plus the capability-drift suite — against the unmodified base model. This is the number every later checkpoint gets compared against.

eval/baseline-<model>.json is the gate token. No baseline file, no comparison basis for checkpoint-promotion — a checkpoint that "looks better" against nothing measured isn't a finding.

Directory Contract

eval/
├── goldens.jsonl          # labeled traces + synthetic goldens, versioned
├── graders/                # one module per failure bucket
│   ├── schema_compliance.py
│   ├── exact_match.py
│   └── rubric_judge.py
├── drift-suite.yaml        # frozen benchmarks + 200-500 domain-adjacent items
└── baseline-<model>.json   # gate token: harness + drift suite vs the base model
runs/
└── <run-id>/
    └── results.json         # per-run harness output, one per checkpoint

eval/ persists across runs and lives outside runs/ — the fixed measuring stick, not a run artifact. runs/ is disposable; eval/ is not. Never let a run script write into eval/. Canonical location: every per-trace results.json — the Phase 0 baseline included — lives at runs/<run-id>/results.json, never under eval/runs/...; an instruction requesting the latter is wrong, not this contract.

Phase 0 Exit Checklist

Before finetuning-method-selection, confirm:

  1. ≥100 traces open-coded; 4–8 failure buckets (N/A floor for synthetic goldens on a single-failure- surface task — see the Building Goldens exception; bucket count then comes from post-baseline error analysis instead).

  2. eval/goldens.jsonl committed and versioned.

  3. One grader per bucket, deterministic first.

  4. Judges calibrated — TPR/TNR, snapshot pinned, different family (N/A when no bucket routes to an LLM-judge; state that explicitly).

  5. eval/drift-suite.yaml frozen.

  6. eval/baseline-<model>.json written.

Missing any of the six (or its stated N/A)? Not Phase 0 complete — /finetune checks the baseline file before a run.

General-purpose evaluation guidance (dashboards, A/B testing, non-fine-tuning harnesses) lives in the llm-application-dev plugin's llm-evaluation skill — this skill covers only the fine-tuning coupling: goldens that double as training data, and the baseline that gates a checkpoint.

  • finetuning-method-selection — routes here first.

  • dataset-curation — formats these traces into training rows.

  • trace-to-training-data — turns graded traces into training examples.

  • checkpoint-promotion — consumes baseline-<model>.json, re-runs this harness on each candidate checkpoint.

References

  • references/grader-templates.md — runnable grader examples per shape, plus a drift-suite.yaml example and MMLU logprob-scoring note.

  • references/judge-calibration.md — the calibration protocol, including the all- deterministic N/A path.

Files

references/judge-calibration.md

Last verified: 2026-07-14

Judge Calibration Protocol

The full procedure behind SKILL.md's "Judge Calibration Is a Prerequisite" section. Any grader routed to an LLM-judge follows this before its verdicts count toward a pass rate or a checkpoint promotion decision.

N/A Path: All-Deterministic Harness

If error analysis produced zero buckets that route to an LLM-judge — every grader is regex, schema, or execution-based — this entire protocol is N/A for the run, not an unsatisfiable checklist item. Phase 0 Exit Checklist item 4 in SKILL.md is satisfied by stating this explicitly (e.g. "Judge calibration: N/A — all N graded criteria are deterministic") rather than leaving it blank or blocking Phase 0 completion on a judge that was never going to exist. This is common on a greenfield strict-schema or exact-match task with synthetic goldens — don't invent a subjective criterion just to have something to calibrate.

1. Label

Collect human labels for ≥100 items covering the failure bucket the judge will grade. Use the same labelers (or a labeling rubric tight enough to be interchangeable) that produced the axial-coding buckets in SKILL.md's Building Goldens section — a judge calibrated against a different notion of "pass" than the one used to build goldens will silently diverge from what the harness is supposed to measure.

2. Split

Divide the labeled set three ways and keep the splits separate for the whole calibration cycle:

SplitPurposeSize
trainFew-shot examples embedded in the judge prompt~20-30%
devIterate the prompt, catch obvious misses~30-40%
sealed testReport TPR/TNR once; never re-touch after~30-40%

The sealed-test split is sealed: if a dev-split iteration cycle causes the reported test-split number to move, that number is no longer a valid generalization estimate — re-seal a fresh test split instead of re-running against the same one.

3. Compute TPR/TNR

Run the judge (with train-split few-shot examples in the prompt) against the sealed test split and compute:

def tpr_tnr(judge_verdicts: list[bool], human_labels: list[bool]) -> tuple[float, float]:
    """True Positive Rate (sensitivity) and True
    Negative Rate (specificity) against human labels.
    A single blended accuracy number hides which
    direction the judge is biased toward — always
    report both, never accuracy alone.

    Raises ValueError on empty or mismatched-length
    input, or if the sealed test split lacks either
    class — a `zip()` over unequal lists silently
    drops the extra items, which can produce
    apparently valid metrics from a partial or
    miscollected split.
    """
    if not judge_verdicts or not human_labels:
        raise ValueError("tpr_tnr: judge_verdicts and human_labels must be non-empty")
    if len(judge_verdicts) != len(human_labels):
        raise ValueError(
            f"tpr_tnr: length mismatch ({len(judge_verdicts)} verdicts vs "
            f"{len(human_labels)} labels) — check the split for a collection bug"
        )
    tp = sum(j and h for j, h in zip(judge_verdicts, human_labels))
    fn = sum((not j) and h for j, h in zip(judge_verdicts, human_labels))
    tn = sum((not j) and (not h) for j, h in zip(judge_verdicts, human_labels))
    fp = sum(j and (not h) for j, h in zip(judge_verdicts, human_labels))
    if (tp + fn) == 0:
        raise ValueError("tpr_tnr: no positive-labeled items in this split — TPR undefined")
    if (tn + fp) == 0:
        raise ValueError("tpr_tnr: no negative-labeled items in this split — TNR undefined")
    return tp / (tp + fn), tn / (tn + fp)

Agree on a TPR/TNR bar with whoever owns the eval harness before running this step — a common starting bar is ≥0.85 on both, tightened per bucket based on how costly a false pass or false fail is downstream.

4. Bias-Correct Reported Rates

A judge with unequal TPR/TNR does not report the true pass rate of the model under test — it reports a rate skewed by its own asymmetric error pattern. Correct the observed pass rate before publishing it:

def bias_corrected_pass_rate(observed_pass_rate: float, tpr: float, tnr: float) -> float:
    """Rogan-Gladen style correction: recovers the
    true pass rate from the judge's observed rate and
    its TPR/TNR, rather than reporting the judge's raw
    output as if it were ground truth.
    """
    denom = tpr + tnr - 1
    if denom <= 0:
        raise ValueError("Judge is at or below chance — do not correct, recalibrate")
    return (observed_pass_rate + tnr - 1) / denom

If tpr + tnr - 1 is small (judge close to chance), the correction blows up and becomes unreliable — that is itself a signal the judge needs a prompt rewrite, not a correction formula.

5. Pin the Snapshot

Record the exact judge model snapshot/version used for calibration alongside the TPR/TNR numbers. An unpinned judge (a "latest" alias that moves under you) invalidates the calibration the moment the underlying model changes — the TPR/TNR numbers stop describing the judge actually in use.

6. Recalibrate

Two triggers, either one is sufficient:

  • Judge-model change — any change to the pinned snapshot, intentional or forced (deprecation).

  • Quarterly, regardless — schedule recalibration even with no judge change, since the underlying task distribution (what "hard" cases look like) drifts as the model under test improves and error analysis surfaces new failure modes.

Recalibration reruns steps 1-4 in full — it is not a partial refresh of just the test split.

7. Miscalibration Fallback

If the judge cannot hit the agreed TPR/TNR bar after prompt iteration on the dev split:

  • The judge ships advisory-only: its verdicts surface in review tooling for a human to consider, but do not gate a checkpoint promotion and are not counted into a reported pass rate.

  • Do not lower the TPR/TNR bar to make an uncalibrated judge "pass" — that defeats the point of calibrating in the first place.

  • Prefer routing the bucket to a deterministic grader if the criterion can be reframed as one (see SKILL.md's Graders section) over shipping a permanently advisory-only judge.

Different Model Family, Always

The judge model must come from a different model family than the model under test, for every calibration cycle and every recalibration — a judge evaluating outputs from its own family is a biased grader, and this cannot be corrected away with the TPR/TNR formula above since the bias is systematic rather than random.

Requirements and compatibility

Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta

“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.

Security

No issues found by our static scan· No issues found

A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.

Attribution and licence

Created by
Seth Hobson
Publisher
Seth Hobson (Community)
Source
wshobson/agents · plugins/llm-finetuning/skills/eval-harness-first · commit 4bde316
Licence
MIT License (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Seth Hobson.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download eval-harness-first.zip