Generate Judgements

Use when creating or updating test judgement definitions (judge_definitions) for an agent skill evaluation YAML config. Analyzes a skill's SKILL.md and reference files to produce fine-grained yes/no judge questions with scope tags. Triggers on "generate judgements", "create judge definitions", "write test config", "add judgements", "生成判定", "创建测试配置", "更新判定", "补充judgement".

Generate Judgements for Skill Evaluation

Analyze a skill's source files and produce fine-grained judge_definitions for the mlflow-skills automated evaluation framework. Each judgement is a yes/no question that an LLM judge answers by reading the execution trace.

Prerequisites

• Access to the target skill directory (must contain SKILL.md)
• Familiarity with the mlflow-skills YAML config format (see references/yaml-config-spec.md)

Workflow

digraph generate_judgements {
  rankdir=TB;
  node [shape=box];

  collect [label="Phase 1\nCollect & Analyze Skill Files"];
  infer [label="Phase 2\nInfer Scopes"];
  confirm_scope [label="User confirms scopes" shape=diamond];
  generate [label="Phase 3\nGenerate Judgements per Scope"];
  present [label="Phase 4\nPresent to User"];
  confirm_judge [label="User approves?" shape=diamond];
  write [label="Phase 5\nWrite / Update YAML"];

  collect -> infer;
  infer -> confirm_scope;
  confirm_scope -> generate [label="approved"];
  confirm_scope -> infer [label="revise"];
  generate -> present;
  present -> confirm_judge;
  confirm_judge -> write [label="approved"];
  confirm_judge -> generate [label="revise"];
}

Phase 1: Collect and Analyze Skill Files

Ask the user for two inputs (or auto-detect them):

1. Skill directory path — the folder containing SKILL.md
2. Existing test config YAML path (optional) — if provided, the tool will update its judge_definitions section instead of creating a new file

Then read all available files in this order:

Priority	File	Purpose
1	SKILL.md	Primary source — workflow steps, behavior rules, output format
2	references/*	Supporting details — templates, CLI commands, query patterns
3	README.md / README_CN.md	Additional context — scope boundaries, limitations
4	Existing test config YAML	Understand current judgements to avoid duplication

While reading, extract and note:

• Workflow steps — numbered steps the skill must follow
• Behavior rules — "must", "always", "never", "do not" directives
• Output format requirements — file naming, sections, tables, mandatory fields
• Conditional branches — if/else paths that lead to different outputs
• Important guidelines — the "Important Guidelines" or similar section at the end

Phase 2: Infer Scopes

Analyze the skill for distinct execution paths that produce different outputs or follow different logic. Each distinct path becomes a scope.

How to identify scopes:

1. Look for conditional branches in the workflow (e.g., "If X → do A; else → do B")
2. Look for optional steps (e.g., "Only execute this step if...")
3. Look for different output modes (e.g., "checklist only" vs "assessment report")

Scope naming rules:

• Use lowercase, single-word or hyphenated names: checklist, assessment, research
• The scope all is reserved — it means "always run regardless of test_scope"
• Every skill has at least the implicit all scope for common/shared behavior

Present inferred scopes to the user with a brief description of each:

I found the following execution branches in this skill:

1. `all` — Common behavior shared across all paths
   (skill loading, doc search, categorization, source annotations)

2. `checklist` — Checklist-only output path
   (no live resource, generates checklist file, offers next steps)

3. `assessment` — Live assessment path
   (runs AWS CLI, generates assessment report, no separate checklist)

Does this look right? Should I add, remove, or rename any scope?

Wait for user confirmation before proceeding.

Phase 3: Generate Judgements

For each confirmed scope, generate fine-grained judge_definitions. Follow these rules:

3.1 Granularity Principle

One check point per judgement. Each judgement tests exactly ONE behavior or requirement.

# GOOD — one specific check
- name: sequential-mcp-calls
  scope: all
  question: >
    Check that MCP tool calls were executed sequentially...

# BAD — multiple checks crammed into one
- name: workflow-correct
  scope: all
  question: >
    Check that the agent searched docs sequentially, read pages,
    extracted items into 5 categories, and wrote the file...

3.2 Judgement Categories

Generate judgements in this order, for each scope:

Category A: Skill Loading & Invocation (scope: all)

• Was the skill loaded (SKILL.md read)?
• Were reference files read when needed?

Category B: Workflow Behavior (scope: all or scope-specific)

• Did each workflow step execute correctly?
• Were sequential/parallel execution rules followed?
• Were error handling / retry rules followed?
• Were conditional branches taken correctly?

Category C: Output Quality (scope: all or scope-specific)

• Does the output contain all mandatory sections/categories?
• Does the output follow the naming convention?
• Does the output include required metadata (source annotations, IDs, etc.)?
• Are quantities within expected ranges?

Category D: Scope-Specific Behavior (per non-all scope)

• What is unique to this execution path?
• What should NOT happen in this path? (negative checks)
• What additional output/actions are expected?

Category E: Guidelines Compliance (scope: all)

• Are "always/never/must" directives respected?
• Is the output language correct?
• Are edge cases handled?

3.3 Naming Convention

Use kebab-case names that describe the check:

skill-invoked              — skill was loaded
sequential-mcp-calls       — tool calls are sequential
doc-search-coverage        — search queries cover required topics
five-categories-complete   — output has all 5 categories
file-naming-convention     — output file name matches pattern
aws-cli-commands-executed  — CLI commands were run
no-separate-checklist-file — negative check: no extra file

3.4 Question Writing Rules

Each question field must be a self-contained instruction for the LLM judge. Follow the patterns in references/judgement-patterns.md.

Required elements in every question:

1. What to check — "Check that..." or "Verify that..."
2. Where to look — "Look in the trace for...", "Look for tool calls..."
3. Success criteria — specific, measurable condition for answering "yes"
4. Leniency guidance (when appropriate) — "Be lenient...", "Answer 'yes' if at least..."

Important clarifications to include when relevant:

• Distinguish between parallel tool CALLS vs batched requests in one call
• Specify minimum thresholds (e.g., "at least 4 of 5", "roughly 30-50")
• Clarify what counts (e.g., "each URL in the requests array counts as a separate page")
• State default answer when evidence is ambiguous (e.g., "benefit of the doubt → yes")

3.5 Negative Checks

For each scope, also generate negative judgements — things that should NOT happen:

• In checklist scope: assessment-only artifacts should NOT appear
• In assessment scope: checklist-only artifacts should NOT appear
• Across all scopes: forbidden behaviors (e.g., parallel calls when sequential is required)

Phase 4: Present Judgements to User

Present the generated judgements grouped by scope with clear section headers:

## Generated Judgements

### Scope: all (7 judgements)
| # | Name | Check |
|---|------|-------|
| 1 | skill-invoked | Skill was loaded from .claude/skills/ |
| 2 | sequential-mcp-calls | MCP calls are sequential, not parallel |
| ... | ... | ... |

### Scope: checklist (2 judgements)
| # | Name | Check |
|---|------|-------|
| 1 | file-naming-convention | Output file follows naming pattern |
| ... | ... | ... |

### Scope: assessment (8 judgements)
| ... | ... | ... |

Total: 17 judgements across 3 scopes.

Does this look right? Should I add, remove, or modify any judgement?

Wait for user confirmation. Iterate if the user requests changes.

Phase 5: Write / Update YAML

Once approved, write the output:

If an existing YAML config was provided:

Replace only the judge_definitions: section. Preserve all other fields (name, prompt, skills, timeout_seconds, environment, etc.) exactly as they are.

Add the standard scope comment block above judge_definitions::

# ==============================================================
# Judge Definitions
#
# scope values:
#   all        — runs in all test scenarios
#   {scope1}   — only when test_scope={scope1}
#   {scope2}   — only when test_scope={scope2}
# ==============================================================
judge_definitions:

If no existing YAML was provided:

Generate a complete YAML config file. Ask the user for:

• name — test run name
• project_dir — temp project directory name
• prompt — default prompt for the test
• test_scope — default scope to use

Use sensible defaults from the skill directory name for the rest. See references/yaml-config-spec.md for the full config structure.

File naming: {skill-name}.yaml placed in the appropriate tests/configs/ directory.

After writing, inform the user of the file path and remind them:

• They can override test_scope and prompt from the CLI
• Empty environment values won't override existing env vars
• Judges with scope: all always run

Important Guidelines

• Be exhaustive: Extract every testable behavior from the skill. It's better to have too many judgements than to miss an important check. The user can always remove extras.
• One point per judgement: Never combine multiple checks. If you're tempted to use "and" in a question, split it into two judgements.
• Write for an LLM judge: The question will be answered by an LLM reading a raw MLflow trace (JSON with tool calls and responses). Be explicit about where to find evidence in the trace.
• Include thresholds: When the skill specifies numbers (e.g., "5 search queries", "30-50 items", "at least 3 per category"), encode those in the judgement.
• Respect language: Write judgement questions in English (they are consumed by an LLM judge, not shown to end users). But interact with the user in their language.
• Preserve existing work: When updating an existing YAML, review current judgements first. Keep well-written ones, improve weak ones, add missing ones.